codex_web_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses that operations can be chained using ref_id across calls, that session context is auto-maintained, that open() inlines [cN: text → domain] markers where N is the clickable id, that responses contain ref_id, and that valid Codex login credentials are required. These go far beyond schema details.

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 a dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow, mechanics, and requirements. It is logically organized and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Slightly long, but appropriate given the operational complexity it must convey.

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 complex multi-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow and return of ref_id, but does not specify the exact structure of search results or opened document bodies. This is a minor gap; the description is still sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: it explains the meaning of ref_id as a chaining token, how the click id N is derived from inline markers, and that session_id overrides the auto-maintained session. This makes the parameters actionable beyond their raw names and schema 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 explicitly identifies the tool as a multi-step deep research tool and details the exact operation sequence: '搜索 → 打开文档 → 页内查找 → 点击链接' (search, open, find, click). It names the underlying engine (Codex web retrieval + document browsing) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling codex_web_search by emphasizing multi-step research.

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 a concrete typical workflow (search → open → find → click) and explains that operations can be combined in one call or split across rounds using session context. It mentions suitability for non-Anthropic models, but does not explicitly state when one should choose this tool over codex_web_search or describe exclusions, missing the highest bar.

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