Review git changes (paid)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses extensive behavioral context: it spends Codex quota, sends the diff and possibly other repo files to OpenAI, has best-effort redaction with raw extra_context, auto-loads AGENTS.md and skills, ignores isolation flags, blocks up to a deadline, loses partial output on timeout, and supports recovery via job_id. It also explains review_status/coverage semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Although long, every paragraph earns its place: cost/alternatives, scope, result semantics, static-review limitation, data egress, and progress/recovery. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and paid warning, and uses clear section labels and bolded terms for scannability. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and security implications.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description correctly focuses on usage context, cost, egress, limitations, and recovery. It leaves no practical gap: the agent knows when to use it, what it costs, what data leaves the environment, what the limitations are, and how to handle long-running or timed-out calls via the async/job family.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter context beyond the schema, such as 'extra_context ... cuts false positives', 'untracked files ... NOT reviewed by default', 'pass workspace_root (absolute) for the right repo', and the distinction that timeout_seconds bounds the run, not necessarily the inline wait. It does not walk through every parameter, but the schema already does that.

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 (a different model) to review your git changes for an independent second opinion.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming codex_dry_run/codex_status as free alternatives and codex_review_changes_async for long-running reviews. The paid nature is boldly stated in the first line.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use codex_dry_run or codex_status first if only checking scope/readiness, prefer codex_review_changes_async for multi-file/whole-branch reviews that may exceed the timeout, and treat results as unvalidated claims because this is STATIC review, not a verify mode. It also tells the agent to pass workspace_root for the correct repo and use extra_context to cut false positives.

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