Consult Codex (paid)

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

The description extensively discloses behavior beyond annotations: it runs in a read-only sandbox, never edits files, sends question and extra_context to OpenAI, auto-loads AGENTS.md and skills, has best-effort redaction that does not cover raw inputs, and terminates with unrecoverable partial output on timeout. It also details progress streaming and recovery via meta.job_id, far exceeding what the annotations convey.

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 long but exceptionally well-structured, with bolded headers (PAID, Data egress, Progress & recovery) and front-loaded critical warnings. Every sentence carries essential information, and the organization makes complex caveats navigable rather than rambling.

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's complexity—9 parameters, multiple sibling alternatives, external API calls, sandbox constraints, and timeout/recovery behavior—the description is thoroughly complete. It covers prerequisites (free status check), alternatives (async variant), side effects (data egress), error/edge cases (deadline expiry, partial output), and points to output envelope/meta.job_id for result recovery. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

Although the schema already covers all 9 parameters at 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains workspace_root fallback behavior, timeout_seconds clamping to 10-600s and server default, reasoning_effort overrides and advisory values, extra_context being untrusted, and idempotency_key dedup semantics with conflict refusals. This goes well beyond the schema's baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask Codex (a different model) for a read-only second opinion or answer.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is a synchronous paid consult, contrasting with codex_consult_async and codex_dry_run, and stating it is a static review rather than a verify mode.

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 provides explicit guidance: run codex_status (free) first to confirm CLI installation/authentication, use codex_consult_async for long-running or high-reasoning-effort consults, pass workspace_root for repo-grounded questions, and omit it for pure Q&A. It also advises treating findings as unvalidated claims to verify manually, which is key usage context.

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