codex-reply

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

The description discloses the underlying mechanism ('uses codex exec resume', 'loads the previous session from disk'), adding useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., code execution, file modifications) or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, more behavioral disclosure would be valuable.

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 two sentences: purpose then mechanism. It is front-loaded, concise (~30 words), with no redundant information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and mechanism but lacks details on return values, error handling, or safety considerations. Sufficient as a minimal viable but not fully complete for a tool that may execute code.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the purpose of threadId and prompt but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool continues a Codex CLI conversation using a thread ID and follow-up prompt, with a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('Codex CLI conversation'). It distinguishes from sibling 'codex' by explicitly referencing 'previous codex call', implying this is for follow-ups.

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 provides clear usage context: you need a thread ID from a previous call. It implicitly differentiates from starting a new conversation but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like 'codex'.

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