Consult Codex in background (paid)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call is paid, consumes Codex quota, has no dry-run preview, runs to completion even if never polled, has a configurable deadline, never edits files, and sends raw unredacted `question`/`extra_context` to OpenAI. It also explains workspace-root resolution, AGENTS.md auto-loading, and skill discovery—far exceeding the annotation-provided hints.

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 dense but front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and immediate return value, followed by a clear PAID warning, a comparison to the sync sibling, job lifecycle steps, and data-egress caveats. Every sentence provides operationally relevant detail without fluff.

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, the description fully covers purpose, usage guidance, pricing, side effects, job lifecycle, parameter caveats, workspace behavior, and data egress. The presence of an output schema makes the lack of explicit return-value explanation acceptable; the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke safely.

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 parameters at 100%, the description adds meaningful semantic nuance: `extra_context` is labeled UNTRUSTED and not redacted, `workspace_root` fallback triggers `meta.workspace_warning`, and `idempotency_key` replays results with no new spend only when key and args match. These details go well beyond the field descriptions.

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+resource: 'Ask Codex for a read-only second opinion in the background' and states the immediate return of a `job_id`. It clearly distinguishes from the synchronous sibling `codex_consult` by noting it is 'detached' and better for long-running, high-reasoning_effort or broad repo-grounded consults.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over `codex_consult` when the sync deadline may be exceeded, warns that sync runs lose partial work, and instructs running `codex_status` first because there is no dry-run. It also names the exact lifecycle tools: `codex_job_status`, `codex_job_result`, `codex_job_consume_result`, and `codex_job_cancel`.

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