codex_send_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: a bounded 90-second wait for the result and a prohibition on auto-approving permissions. It stops short of describing what happens on timeout, whether the call is a mutating write, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the action and scope come first, the behavioral constraints second. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and content constraints adequately. It leaves the return value shape and timeout failure behavior unstated, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 0% (the lone 'message' string is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the parameter's content as the user's explicitly written verbatim text and forbids rewriting or injecting extra instructions. That is genuine semantic guidance the schema does not provide.

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 verb and resource: send the user's verbatim text to the currently selected Codex task and wait up to 90s for a result. The 'currently selected Codex 任务' scope cleanly separates it from codex_list_tasks, codex_select_task, and codex_task_status without needing to open any schema.

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 implicitly tells the agent what content to pass (the user's explicit original text) and forbids rewriting or auto-approving permissions, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus the sibling tools or what prerequisite (a task must already be selected) exists, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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