run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the isolation boundary, that file bodies are NEVER included, that Codex lacks conversation context, and the required review-then-copy workflow. This is rich behavioral context well beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: execution mode, return format, and post-run agent responsibilities. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 sandboxed execution tool with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect, what the agent must do, and the safety boundary. The manifest description compensates for the missing output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the prompt's self-contained requirement and the scratch-directory context, adding some value, but does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb 'Run' + resource 'Codex CLI task' + the isolation mode, and clearly distinguishes what the tool returns (final message plus artifact manifest, not file bodies). It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from a plain shell executor.

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: Codex cannot see conversation context, so the prompt must be self-contained; Codex can read the workspace but write only in scratch; the agent must read artifacts and approve before copying. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' alternative, but the context is otherwise well-specified.

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