ask_codex_async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that execution is in a background thread, results are delivered via mailbox, the message body is JSON-encoded, and the task is fire-and-forget with a restart caveat. This goes beyond what schema/annotations provide.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information (background execution, mailbox delivery, label matching, persistence caveat) without fluff. Minor loss for not being more scannable, but overall efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, async, mailbox interaction) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to retrieve results, label usage, audience requirement, and persistence behavior. It does not explain the full return payload structure or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and poll the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'label' and 'from_agent' explicitly, and implies 'prompt' as the task input. However, it does not describe 'model', 'write', 'effort', or 'workdir', relying on the phrase 'same ask_codex' to cover them. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 it dispatches a Codex task in the background and returns immediately, distinguishing it from synchronous siblings like ask_codex. It also explains the delivery mechanism via mailbox, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains how to use the tool (poll inbox with inbox(agent=from_agent)) and provides a key prerequisite (from_agent must be known). It also advises using label to match results for concurrent dispatches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ask_codex_async versus ask_codex or other async variants, though the context implies background use.

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