codex_start_review_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the workflow is durable and returns immediately, implying asynchronous behavior and need for polling. However, it does not mention side effects, state changes, or constraints like idempotency, which would be helpful for understanding the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise at three sentences with front-loaded purpose and clear follow-up action. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 15 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits guidance on how to configure parameters like target_type, sandbox, or instructions, which are essential for correct usage. The return value is partially covered by mentioning workflowId, but not fully detailed.

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 description provides no information about the 15 parameters, their meanings, or how they affect behavior. This is a critical gap, as the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptive text. The description should summarize key parameters like target_type and delivery.

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 starts a durable Codex review workflow and returns a workflowId immediately. It specifies the action (start), the resource (review workflow), and the context (code review tasks), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like codex_start_plan_workflow and codex_start_chat.

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 tells users to use this tool for code review tasks and to poll codex_get_workflow_status afterward. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as when to use codex_start_plan_workflow instead, which is a guideline gap given the number of sibling tools.

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