Resume local Codex thread

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

The 'unattended full access' phrasing adds behavioral context beyond the annotations — it signals that the tool runs autonomously without further user interaction and with broad capability. This complements annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and there is no contradiction between the description and the annotations. The high-privilege framing reinforces the mutating nature of the operation.

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 short paragraphs with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph earns its place by stating the critical authorization precondition. No fluff or repetition of schema data. It could fold a brief parameter note in given the 0% schema coverage, but as written it is tight and hits the key points efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists (so return-value explanation is not required) and annotations are rich, but this is a high-privilege mutation entry point whose description omits operational context: what happens after the thread resumes (does it run to completion unattended? does it return a turn status, tying into start_codex_turn / get_codex_turn_status siblings?). The authorization precondition is covered, but the post-resume lifecycle that an agent needs to orchestrate follow-up calls is left to inference.

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 carries the burden of explaining the two parameters (thread_id, project). It mentions neither. While the names are trivially inferable — thread_id is clearly the thread to resume and project the scoping context — the description does not clarify what 'project' scoping means, the expected format of thread_id, or defaults beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema-documented parameter meaning.

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 names a specific action (Load/Resume), resource (existing local Codex thread), and mode ('unattended full access'). It is clear what the tool does. However, differentiation from siblings like read_codex_thread, list_codex_threads, and start_codex_turn is only implicit through the verb 'resume' — no sibling is named or contrasted, so the agent infers the distinction rather than being told.

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 gives an explicit, actionable precondition: 'Use it only after explicit user authorization under the permission policy returned by get_permissions.' This tells the agent when it is permitted to call the tool and what to check first. It lacks explicit when-not guidance against alternatives (e.g., when to use read_codex_thread for inspection instead), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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