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 disclosure burden. It discloses the output behavior—identifying bottlenecks and proposing ranked optimizations with expected impact—which suggests a non-mutating planning task, but it never explicitly rules out writing files, invoking side effects, or requiring special permissions.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the key output details, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 description explains the purpose and output adequately, while the schema covers most parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools present, the description leaves usage-selection and operational/side-effect context implicit, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the high-quality schema, which already documents target, context, metrics, threadId, and constraints. Since schema description coverage is 83%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; only workingDirectory lacks a schema description.

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 a specific action and resource: analyze performance and create an improvement plan. It further distinguishes itself by naming outputs like bottlenecks and ranked optimizations, making it distinguishable from the code-review, query, explain, and implement siblings.

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 implies a performance-analysis use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as codex_review_plan or codex_query. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or criteria for picking this tool versus the other Codex siblings.

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