codex_list_active_chats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It mentions evidence sources but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a listing tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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 sentence of 8 words, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it omits essential details that could be added without significant bloat.

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 7 parameters, many sibling tools, and a likely complex output, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how 'active' is determined, what 'evidence' encompasses, or any filtering logic. An output schema exists but its contents are not referenced.

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%, but the tool description does not explain the 7 parameters. While some parameter names are self-descriptive, others like 'include_evidence' and 'title_max_chars' lack context. The description adds no value to the 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 specifies the verb 'list' and object 'chats that appear active', and mentions the evidence sources (live/cache/transcript). This distinguishes it from siblings like codex_list_pending_interactions or codex_search_chats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as codex_list_project_chats or codex_search_chats. The description does not state prerequisites or typical use cases.

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