Codex Plan Review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'identifies gaps, risks, missing edge cases, and suggests improvements', which is a good behavioral disclosure of what outputs look like. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, latency, whether it modifies anything, or whether it consumes substantial resources. The outputs listed are helpful but partial.

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, no filler. First sentence states purpose, second sentence enumerates what the review produces. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 review tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but lacks detail on how the review is delivered (return format, whether it's blocking/async) and doesn't clarify the distinction from codex_review_code beyond implication. Adequate for basic use but an agent might not know how the review output presents.

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 80%, which is high. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high (>80%), baseline is 3. The description names no specific parameters but the schema already documents plan, threadKey, constraints, codebasePath adequately, so the description adds no extra value but doesn't need to.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: 'Ask Codex to critique an implementation plan' and lists specific outputs (gaps, risks, missing edge cases, suggestions). Verb+resource are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like codex_review_code (code review) and codex_plan_perf (perf planning), though it doesn't explicitly name them, so it loses a point on sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context for use ('critique an implementation plan') but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references. An agent could infer this is for pre-implementation review, but it doesn't state 'use instead of codex_review_code when reviewing plans rather than code' or similar exclusions.

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