ask_codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses ephemerality, model-default behavior, advisory mode's auth preflight and isolated environment, write-mode sandbox with the HARDLINE_ALLOW_WRITE guard, read-only fallback, and JSONL telemetry limitations.

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 dense but front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then systematically covers operational details. Every sentence adds value, especially the security-relevant write and advisory mode constraints, with no fluff or repetition.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers most behavioral and parameter nuances well. However, it does not describe the reply format, error behavior, or timeout semantics, which would be needed for full completeness without an 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does: mode (advisory vs default), model (omission passes no --model flag), workdir (repository target in default, rejected in advisory), write (requires workdir, env var, read-only otherwise), and effort (enables JSONL telemetry).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Ask Codex a question and wait for its reply." It then clarifies the underlying mechanism ("Spawns an ephemeral codex exec"), which helps distinguish this tool from sibling models like ask_claude/ask_hermes and from the async variant ask_codex_async.

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 provides clear context for when to use default vs advisory mode and explains writable vs read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though "wait for its reply" implicitly contrasts with ask_codex_async.

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