codex_answer_pending_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('Answer') and consequence ('so a turn can continue'), but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or behavior of individual parameters. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids redundancy. However, it lacks parameter documentation.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 10 parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the 'answer' process, decision options, or how the output schema relates, leaving the agent underinformed for a moderately complex tool.

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%, yet the description mentions only 'interaction id' without explaining other critical parameters (decision, action, answers, etc.). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema for the 10 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 verb 'Answer' and the resource 'pending Codex interaction', and the purpose 'so a turn can continue'. This distinguishes it from siblings like codex_list_pending_interactions (list) and codex_interrupt_turn (different action).

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 advises to use only for a listed interaction id and to poll the owning operation, turn, or workflow next. This provides clear context and next steps, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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