Ask Codex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It never warns that the 'sandbox' parameter can escalate Codex to 'workspace-write' or 'danger-full-access' (i.e. file mutation), nor does it mention that this is an external model call with associated latency, cost, or credential requirements. Those are material traits the agent needs before invoking.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and usage contexts following. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat generic and could be sharpened against the specialized siblings.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight for a 4-parameter tool that can grant another model write access to the workspace. It explains neither the return/response behavior nor the safety implications of the sandbox enum, leaving significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents prompt, model, sandbox, and workingDirectory, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, and notably omits any explanation of the sandbox risk levels.

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 a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('OpenAI Codex'), plus elaborates on the kinds of tasks (questions or task delegation). It is clearly the general-purpose entry point, though it never explicitly positions itself against the more specialized siblings like codex_review_code or codex_explain_code.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: 'getting a second opinion, exploring unfamiliar code, or tasks that benefit from a different model's perspective.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but it names no exclusions and does not tell the agent when to prefer a sibling such as codex_explain_code instead.

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