Collect a Codex job's output

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns report and actualChanges, trust actualChanges over report, non-blocking progress return, and job completion requirement. Highly transparent.

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?

Single, well-structured paragraph front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (report with specifics, actualChanges). Still, a more detailed template of the report could improve completeness, but current level is sufficient.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by linking jobId to codex_start and explaining that includeActivity returns the full trace, enriching the schema information.

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?

Description clearly states the tool collects a finished Codex job's output, specifying the structured report and actualChanges. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_status and codex_cancel by focusing on final output collection.

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 clear guidance on when to use (after job finishes) and what to expect (progress if still running). Includes a practical tip to trust actualChanges over the report. Lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools but is generally sufficient.

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