ask_codex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sending a prompt and returning output, but fails to cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the CLI isn't available), performance expectations (e.g., typical response times), or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files in the working directory). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, adhering to the principle of conciseness.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits details about the output format, error conditions, dependencies (like CLI installation), and typical usage scenarios. For a tool that interacts with a local CLI and has multiple parameters, this level of brevity results in significant informational gaps.

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 low at 25%, with only the 'timeout_ms' parameter documented. The description adds no semantic details about parameters like 'prompt' (e.g., format or content expectations), 'model' (e.g., available models or defaults), or 'working_directory' (e.g., purpose or impact). It doesn't compensate for the schema's deficiencies, leaving most parameters poorly explained.

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 clearly states the action ('Send a prompt') and target ('to local Codex CLI') with the outcome ('return its output'). It specifies the tool's function as interacting with a local CLI rather than a cloud API, which is useful context. However, without sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other methods (e.g., direct CLI calls, other AI models, or cloud-based services). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the Codex CLI installed locally, or typical use cases like code generation or debugging. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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