codex_repair_issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions dry-run by default and a stopping condition, but fails to warn about potentially destructive actions (e.g., force_restart_app_server) or explain what allowlisted means. More detail is needed for safe use.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage condition. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 (making return value documentation unnecessary), the tool has 15 parameters and the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain how different actions relate to parameters or provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 15 parameters. Parameters like diagnosis_id, thread_id, etc., are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 an allowlisted repair action with dry-run first by default. It distinguishes from sibling tools like codex_collect_diagnostics or codex_get_* status tools by specifying repair actions.

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?

Explicitly says to use only when diagnostics or agentGuidance recommends an action, and to stop when loopGuard.allowed is false. This provides clear conditions for use, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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