submit_codex_task

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

Rich disclosure beyond the annotations: it consumes a specific account's allowance, runs asynchronously, disables inherited user config, transfers no credentials or full memory, and requires the Windows host to remain awake. The 'read-only mode' phrase describes the delegated run rather than the tool itself, so it does not squarely contradict readOnlyHint=false, but the ambiguity is worth noting.

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?

Dense but efficient: the core action and its constraints are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact (cost, async, isolation, host requirement, exclusions). No filler.

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?

For an async submission tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back and how to retrieve the result; it never mentions get_codex_task or any task identifier. It covers the important preconditions well, but the post-call workflow is left to inference from sibling names.

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?

The single 'task' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it does partially by advising 'supply only relevant task context' and giving a concrete example task string (BRIDGE_TEST_OK). It says nothing about the 50,000-character limit, expected formatting, or how self-contained the task text must be.

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?

States a specific verb (delegate/submit) and resource (a task to the locally signed-in Codex account) plus the exact model, gpt-6.1-sol. It also carves out scope against siblings by excluding Claude and Google access, so an agent can separate it from submit_claude_task.

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?

Gives clear usage context: one task per call, only relevant context should be supplied, the host must stay awake, and it explicitly excludes bulk scraping and Claude/Google access. It does not, however, explicitly route to siblings such as get_codex_task for retrieval or submit_claude_task for Claude work.

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