codex_dispatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: non-blocking, persistent tmux session, survival of disconnects. However, it omits details on error handling, concurrency, and sandbox side effects (e.g., full-access creates git worktree).

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 sentences, front-loading the core action and returning immediately. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters with low schema coverage and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the main purpose and lifecycle, but lacks details on input parameters and output (though output schema exists). It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage (only sandbox has a description), the description adds no information about any parameters. The 5 parameters, including required ones like prompt, cwd, and topic, are left unexplained, offering no additional meaning.

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 tool dispatches a long-running Codex task to background, returns immediately, and runs in a persistent tmux session. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing codex_status and codex_cancel.

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 advises to use codex_status for progress and codex_cancel for stopping, providing context for when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'codex' or state when not to use this tool.

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