codex_analyze_issue

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: it recommends actions (not executes), defers to agentGuidance, and is analytical in nature. It lacks details on side effects (likely none) and doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but the context implies non-mutative behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third provides behavioral guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not help the agent understand how to scope diagnostics using the parameters. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing input guidance.

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?

The description fails to explain any of the 10 parameters. Despite 0% schema description coverage, it does not mention problem_text, operation_id, since_minutes, etc. or how to use them. The agent has no guidance on parameter selection beyond defaults in schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze scoped diagnostics and recommend safe next actions. It specifies the verb 'analyze', the resource 'scoped diagnostics', and the outcome. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning after collect_diagnostics and for compact root-cause summary.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after collect_diagnostics or when a human needs a compact root-cause summary. Also provides a behavioral constraint: 'Follow agentGuidance rather than inventing retries', which guides correct usage and prevents inappropriate retries.

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