codex_continue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'continues' and 'adjustments, corrections, or iterative bugfixing', implying modifications, but it does not explicitly state that it will execute code, modify files, or have destructive potential. It omits permissions, rate limits, reversibility, and any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about the impact of calling this tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler, no redundant clauses, and is efficient in conveying the primary purpose.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is only one sentence and does not explain what happens when called, what the response looks like, how to handle asynchronous behavior, or the nature of the execution (e.g., whether it runs commands). An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or its results from this description alone.

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 description adds no parameter-specific guidance. It does not mention thread_id, instructions, or any other parameter. With a schema description coverage of 63%, some parameters may lack sufficient clarity, and the tool description does not compensate. Agents cannot derive additional meaning about how to fill parameters correctly from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Continues') and resource ('existing Codex session thread'), and clarifies the purpose as 'follow-up adjustments, corrections, or iterative bugfixing'. This clearly differentiates it from starting a new session and from other agents (e.g., agy_continue) by explicitly naming 'Codex'.

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 implies when to use it: when you have an existing session thread and want to continue it. The purpose is explicit, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude use for new sessions. The context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this after a prior codex_execute or codex_continue, but there are no explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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