Send to Codex Agent

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: auto mode steers an active turn or starts a follow-up when idle, and delivery is async ('returns once delivered, not once acted'). This adds useful context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, though it doesn't detail edge cases like errors or worker state transitions.

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?

Three succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds distinct information: mode behavior, explicit mode guidance, and async delivery semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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 a tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects but omits full mode semantics and turnOptions usage. The agent is left to infer what 'steer' vs 'followup' explicitly mean and what additional turn/start fields are acceptable. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for mode by explaining auto mode behavior and the explicit-mode heuristic, but it doesn't explain prompt content expectations, turnOptions semantics beyond schema, or agentId resolution. The description helps but leaves significant parameter ambiguity to the agent.

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 and resource: 'Send guidance to a worker.' It clearly describes the core action and distinguishes the delivery semantics from waiting, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like agent_steer or agent_topup beyond the mode discussion.

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?

Provides actionable guidance: use explicit mode when the distinction matters, and poll agent_status rather than using agent_wait. It clearly tells the agent what to do after calling the tool, but it could more explicitly name sibling alternatives and when agent_send is preferred over agent_steer or agent_followup.

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