Continue waiting for a Codex reply

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

Annotations already flag readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: an unconfirmed acknowledgement does not prove delivery even after MCP reconnect, retries must reuse the same deliveryId, and only the original verified Claude session and accounts can use the receipt. Those auth and idempotency semantics are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the most failure-prone guidance (retry with the same deliveryId). The opening clause 'Continue a Desktop creation or send using its deliveryId' is slightly awkward, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming terminal outcomes (stops for approval, user input, verification error) and the retry loop. It does not describe the response envelope shape, though the nested responsePreferences schema covers cursor delivery, so the remaining gap is minor.

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, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the receipt lifecycle: the deliveryId persists across timeout retries and is the handle the agent must reuse rather than re-send. It adds no detail on responsePreferences, but the schema already documents that envelope and cursor flow.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: continue waiting on a Desktop creation/send identified by deliveryId, and it explicitly says it 'Never sends a message or creates a task,' which separates it from send_to_codex_thread and delegate_to_codex. It never names those siblings directly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives explicit when-to-use rules ('On timeout, call again with the same deliveryId'), explicit when-not-to ('do not ask the user to fetch the answer or resend'), and explicit stop conditions (approval, user input, verification error). This is the strongest dimension of the definition.

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