codex_execute_async

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the key behavior (async, returns task_id) but does not mention limitations, error handling, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first gives action, second explains retrieval, third states benefit. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core asynchronous flow and how to retrieve results, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness. It could briefly mention subcommand defaults or args usage, but the schema handles that.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information; it only describes the overall tool behavior. The schema already documents each parameter with descriptions.

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 'Start a Codex task in the background and return immediately with a task_id', specifying the verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools by noting the asynchronous behavior and the need to use codex_check_result to retrieve results.

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 explains that the tool allows you to continue working while Codex runs, and instructs to use codex_check_result to retrieve results later. This implies when to use it versus the synchronous codex_execute, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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