codex_review_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the run is read-only, so the agent knows the repository will not be mutated. It says nothing about cost, latency, external service invocation, or auth requirements.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs purpose, target scope, engine, and execution mode without a wasted clause. Appropriately sized for the purpose statement it delivers.

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 invokes an external model with six parameters and no output schema, yet the description never says what a review returns or that it may be slow or costly. The parameter surface is fully covered by the schema, but the operational context around an AI-backed review is thin.

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 all six parameters including defaults, enums, and the astra user_confirmed gate. The description adds only the loose mapping of 'uncommitted changes or a specific git diff' to the scope parameter, which is baseline-level value.

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 (review) and resource (uncommitted repository changes or a specific git diff) and names the underlying engine. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling codex_analyze, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'review' and 'analyze'.

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 scope phrase ('uncommitted repository changes or a specific git diff') implies when this tool applies, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the siblings a caller should prefer for status, debugging, or implementation work.

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