Open a Codex thread in the desktop app

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds platform scope, the URI scheme, and the UI-focus side effect. It does not cover failure behavior such as an invalid thread ID or the desktop app not running, but there is no contradiction with the 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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives the purpose. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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?

The description plus schema adequately cover the key call details for a low-complexity UI-focus operation. It does not explicitly state return or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the intent is clear, leaving only a minor gap.

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 extra value by showing the exact codex://threads/<id> format for threadId, helping the agent construct a valid call beyond the schema's simple 'Codex thread id'.

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?

States a specific action ('bring... to the front'), a specific resource (Codex thread), platform scope (Windows/macOS), and mechanism (codex://threads/<id>). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_codex_thread or send_to_codex_thread.

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 conveys when to choose this tool: when a human should watch the work live instead of reading a transcript. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the contextual purpose is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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