Interrupt local Codex turn

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the turn is terminated, whether state is lost), authentication requirements, or what happens if the turn is not active. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds zero value beyond the flags.

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, concise sentence: 'Interrupt an active local Codex turn.' It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no unnecessary words. While it is short, it is not verbose; it earns its place as a clear statement. A higher score would require more structured content, but for a simple tool, this is appropriately concise.

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 performs a destructive action and has only two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'active' turn, what the result of interruption is, or whether the operation is reversible. With an output schema present but not described, the agent lacks information on what to expect. The description should provide at least minimal context for safe invocation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for thread_id or turn_id. The description does not mention either parameter or explain their purpose, so an agent must guess from the parameter names alone. This is insufficient for a destructive operation; the description should at least clarify that both parameters identify the specific turn.

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 verb ('Interrupt') and resource ('an active local Codex turn'), which is clear about the action's target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_codex_job or steer_codex_turn, which could be ambiguous in a list of tools. The clarity is good but not exceptional.

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 alternatives. It does not mention conditions for interrupting a turn, how it differs from cancel_codex_job, or any prerequisites. An agent has to infer usage entirely from the tool name and context signals, which is insufficient.

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