Codex Performance Plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (bottlenecks, ranked optimizations with expected impact) and that the deliverable is a plan rather than edits, which tells the agent this is non-mutating. It does not disclose permissions, latency/cost, or whether analyses are cached, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the deliverable detail. Nothing redundant, though it is quite terse for a 5-param planning tool.

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?

With five parameters (one required), 80% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by listing what the resulting plan contains. It gives the agent enough to know what calling this produces, though it could say more about how target/constraints scope the plan.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents target, context, metrics, and constraints. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, defaults, or how metrics/constraints interact with the analysis, leaving the schema to do the work. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'analyze performance and create an improvement plan', with the deliverable further specified as 'bottlenecks' and 'ranked optimizations with expected impact'. An agent can tell this is a planning/analysis tool rather than an implementation one. However, it never names or contrasts with close siblings like codex_review_plan or codex_review_code, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus codex_review_plan, codex_implement, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's subject matter (performance work). Nothing routes the agent explicitly.

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