Read Codex thread

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

The description adds the behavioral constraint that the bridge denies threads outside CODEX_ALLOWED_ROOTS, which is beyond the annotations' safety profile. It also notes the thread is 'persisted'. This provides useful context about authorization and failure modes, though it does not detail behavior for includeTurns or not-found cases.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the second sentence adding a critical restriction. No wasted words.

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 is simple and has strong annotations, but the undocumented includeTurns parameter and lack of output schema description leave gaps. The authorization context is helpful, but the description does not fully cover what the agent needs to know about parameters and possible outcomes.

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 schema covers threadId with a description but includeTurns is undocumented. The description does not explain includeTurns or how it affects the response. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics incomplete.

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 specific verb 'Read' and resource 'persisted authorized Codex thread', distinguishing it from sibling tools like codex_list_threads and codex_status. It also includes scope ('a persisted authorized thread') which clarifies it reads a single thread.

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 context about access restrictions (denies threads outside CODEX_ALLOWED_ROOTS) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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