Ask Codex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention serialization behavior for shared threadKey, the model override semantics, working directory defaults, or any side effects/cost/time implications of invoking Codex. The threadKey serialization behavior lives only in the schema, not the description. It does not describe return format or async behavior either.

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 a single efficient sentence that states purpose and use cases without waste. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks behavioral context that would help an agent: whether calls are blocking/long-running, cost implications of invoking Codex models repeatedly, and guidance on when to use threadKey vs one-shot. The no-annotation reality means the description should carry more behavioral weight than it does.

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 baseline is 3. The description list of use cases adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The description doesn't add guidance on prompt construction quality or formatting 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 verb ('Ask... a question or give it a task') and resource (OpenAI Codex). It names a few use cases (second opinion, exploring unfamiliar code, different model's perspective), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the codex_* siblings beyond these generic use cases.

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 mentions use cases ('second opinion, exploring unfamiliar code, tasks that benefit from a different model's perspective') that imply when to use it, but provides no explicit exclusions or guidance contrasting with sibling tools like codex_review_code, codex_explain_code, or codex_implement. Usage is implied, not clearly delineated.

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