codex_preflight_project_run

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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'read-only' but does not elaborate on what the preflight checks entail, what the live probe does (beyond being 'tiny'), or any side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. Agent lacks crucial safety context.

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 very concise (two sentences), which is efficient, but at the cost of omitting essential details. It front-loads the key action but lacks structure for parameter hints or usage context. It could be improved without adding much length.

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, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a complex tool with 8 parameters and many enums, the description is too brief to provide complete context for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'live_probe' implicitly. The other 7 parameters (project_id, cwd, model, sandbox, approval_policy, workflow_kind, timeout_seconds) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and valid values.

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 runs read-only preflight checks before a long Codex workflow, and optionally starts a live probe. The verb 'run' and resource 'preflight checks' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like codex_start_plan_workflow or codex_get_operation_status, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 before a long Codex workflow, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, when not to use, or what the expected context is. Given the many sibling tools, this is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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