Review Project with Codex

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'focused, read-only' framing and the cwd-rooting behavior, which is useful context. It does not disclose details like whether the review is synchronous, how long it may take, or what the output format is, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the resource, the mode (read-only), and the scoping constraint efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, with no output schema and no guidance on what a review result looks like or how the prompt should be structured, an agent may still be uncertain about invocation details. The sibling tools are not differentiated, which is a minor completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'cwd' as the root location and 'prompt' implicitly as the review request, but it does not explain the expected format, length, or content of the prompt, nor the role of cwd beyond 'rooted at'. This is adequate but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Ask Codex for'), a resource ('code or project review'), and a key scoping constraint ('rooted at the supplied cwd'). It clearly distinguishes the tool as a review-focused operation, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from its siblings codex_consult and codex_continue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for review tasks and emphasizes 'focused, read-only', which suggests when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over codex_consult or codex_continue, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.