codex_list_pending_interactions

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the verb 'List'.

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 concise sentence, which is efficiently front-loaded but lacks structure and additional details. It earns its place but could include more context without being verbose.

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 6 parameters, empty annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use filters, what the output contains, or any other contextual information needed for effective use.

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 6 parameters (thread_id, turn_id, operation_id, workflow_id, status, limit). The enum for status is not elaborated, leaving agents to guess semantic meaning of each filter.

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 lists pending Codex app-server approval/input/elicitation requests. The verb 'List' and resource 'pending interactions' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that answer or approve interactions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like codex_answer_pending_interaction or codex_approve_plan. The description does not mention alternatives or context for selection.

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