List local Codex threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe and repeatable. The description adds the useful context that it lists 'local' threads and supports filtering by project, which goes slightly beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (via cursor/limit) or the search/archived filters, missing opportunities to provide richer behavioral context. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action ('List') before adding the optional filter. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is clear and efficient, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 has five optional parameters, zero schema-level descriptions, and no output schema shown, the description is notably incomplete. It omits critical usage details such as pagination (cursor, limit), search functionality, and the 'archived' filter, which an agent would need to call the tool effectively. While the output schema may exist, the description itself fails to contextualize the tool's full capabilities, leaving significant gaps for an agent to discover.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. The only parameter mentioned is 'project', which is referred to as an optional filter. The other four parameters (limit, cursor, archived, search_term) are not explained at all, and their purposes (pagination, search, archival filtering) are left to the agent's inference from names. This is insufficient for a tool with five parameters, justifying a below-average score.

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 ('List') and resource ('local Codex app-server threads'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_codex_thread' (which reads a single thread) and 'start_codex_turn' (which starts a turn). It also hints at a filter capability, reinforcing the listing scope. This is not a tautology and provides immediate clarity.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by project' gives some usage context, implying that the tool can be used to list threads with an optional project filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied but not fully articulated, so it only meets a minimal standard.

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