Answer a Codex question

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

The description discloses useful timing semantics: answering promptly unblocks the run, late answers are still delivered at the next turn, and the call fails rather than posting orphaned answers. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining failure modes and delivery behavior.

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 focused sentences, with the core purpose first and each sentence adding necessary runtime context. No repetition of schema details or 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 a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring side effects, the description covers invocation, timing, and failure behavior completely. No additional return-format details are necessary for correct use.

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%, and both required parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces that message_id comes from codex_inbox and that text should be direct, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action and target clearly: 'Answer a question codex_inbox reported.' This is distinct from sibling tools by describing a blocking inbox exchange, not a general codex instruction.

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?

Clearly explains when to use it: a Codex run is blocked waiting for this answer, and it fails if no such question exists, which serves as a when-not. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for non-reply communication.

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