codex_search_chats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using 'safe fallback sources' but does not detail what those are, nor does it address auth, rate limits, or data freshness. The caution about active turns adds some transparency.

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) with no waste, but it omits parameter details, making it under-informative for a tool with many parameters.

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 fails to cover the 11 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter semantics. This is severely incomplete for a search tool with complex filtering and pagination.

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%, yet the tool description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters (query, match_mode, etc.). The description is silent on parameter behavior, leaving agents without guidance.

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 searches chat history via MCP-owned index and fallback sources, specifying the use case for discovery/recovery when IDs are lost. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_get_chat or codex_list_active_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?

Guidelines specify when to use (discovery/recovery of lost IDs) and include a caution not to use results as proof of active turns. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings.

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