codex_answer_pending_interaction

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'answer' without indicating side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. No mention of mutability, rate limits, or other behaviors is included.

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 succinct sentence with no unnecessary words. However, given the complexity (10 parameters, empty annotations), it could be expanded with parameter guidance while remaining concise. Currently, it is efficient but under-informative.

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 tool with 10 parameters, empty annotations, and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the nature of interaction, how to use parameters, or what to expect in response. The output schema exists but is not referenced or summarized.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, including the required interaction_id or the enums for decision, action, and scope. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly populate the parameters.

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 answers pending Codex app-server requests to continue the active turn, using specific verb 'answer' and resource 'pending Codex app-server ... request'. It adds context about the consequence (turn continuation). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related siblings like codex_approve_plan or codex_interrupt_turn.

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 when there is a pending interaction needing a response to continue the turn, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusionary language or comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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