Start local Codex job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'read-only' but adds the valuable detail 'return immediately', implying asynchronous behavior. However, it does not disclose what the job does beyond 'inspection', how to track its progress, or any permissions needed. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, and no contradiction is present.

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, front-loaded sentence that mentions the core action and the immediate-return behavior. It is concise and efficient, though it could have included a bit more without becoming verbose. No wasted words, but it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 (5 parameters, async job semantics, multiple related tools), the description is far too brief. It does not explain return value (despite an output schema existing), how to retrieve results, or how this job relates to workflows and steps. The presence of an output schema doesn't alleviate the need for usage context, and the description fails to make the tool understandable in the broader ecosystem.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (prompt, attempt, project, step_id, workflow_id). The schema only offers bare type and default info, so the description carries no semantic weight. For a tool with several context-dependent parameters, this is a major gap.

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 verb 'start' and the resource 'read-only Codex inspection job', and adds the behavioral detail 'return immediately'. This is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'ask_codex' or 'start_codex_turn', though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative. The phrase 'read-only inspection' hints at the tool's scope but doesn't fully differentiate it from other start-type tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as 'ask_codex', 'start_codex_turn', or 'start_step'. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a project or workflow context). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and vague 'inspection' wording, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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