codex_get_chat

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral info (read-only, no retries). Yet it omits details like pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The statement 'Read bounded chat content' hints at limits but does not explain bounding 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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds usage guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (14 params, nested range object, many options), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to use the range modes, include flags, formatting, or budget parameters. The output schema exists but the description offers no guidance on interpreting results.

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 provides no explanation of any of the 14 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. Key parameters like chat_id, range, include_* flags, format, and budgets are completely unaddressed, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names and defaults.

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 reads bounded chat content from specific sources (hook history, transcripts, legacy fallback), and mentions use cases (context recovery, final report inspection). It distinguishes from sibling getters by specifying 'bounded chat content' rather than status or diagnostics.

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 provides when to use ('context recovery', 'final report inspection') and what not to do ('not a write path', 'should not trigger retries'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when to avoid it.

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