codex_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool's purpose (relay approvals, push forward) but doesn't disclose any potential side effects, such as whether the session might execute commands, or any rate limits. The behavior of triggering further actions is implicit but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences, each packed with useful info: purpose, examples, and thread id provenance. No fluff. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple 2-param tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage context, and clarifies where thread IDs come from. It could mention what happens after a reply (e.g., that the session may continue executing), but it's adequate.

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 has 100% coverage for both params (threadId and prompt). The description adds context about prompt format (e.g., approval decisions) and source of threadId, which slightly enhances the meaning, but the schema already explains them adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an existing Codex session by thread id, with specific examples of usage (approval/denial relays). It distinguishes from siblings like implement/deep_explore by focusing on continuing a session rather than creating one.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to relay approval decisions and push a session forward. Also specifies that thread ids come from implement/deep_explore results, giving clear context for usage. This distinguishes it from session creation tools.

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