open_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the link is a local read-only URL, it does not depend on the Codex MCP sandbox, and calling it should never trigger a resubmission. It stops short of describing link lifetime or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose (obtain the progress link) before the usage conditions, and every clause carries information. It is a bit dense with three semicolon-joined ideas in one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only tool whose annotations already cover safety and whose output (a link to hand to the user) is stated in prose, the definition is largely self-sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented relayRunId, which is the tool's sole input.

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% and the single required parameter relayRunId is never explained in the description, including where the agent obtains the id (presumably from start_run/reply_run responses). With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in prose, the agent is left guessing about the identifier's origin and format.

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+resource: obtain the local read-only progress link for an existing task and surface it to the user as a clickable URL. It is clearly not a mutation or event-reading tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from lookalike siblings such as get_run, view_run, or read_run_progress, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Gives explicit triggers and a prohibition: call it after start_run/reply_run succeed, and also call it when the sandbox errors to inspect the original task. It further states the agent must NOT resubmit as a result. This is textbook when-to-use plus when-not guidance.

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