discuss

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 that the tool is interactive and seeks alternate viewpoints, but it does not mention whether it creates or requires a session, whether it has side effects, or how long the interaction lasts. This leaves important behavioral aspects unstated.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is cleanly structured and easy to parse. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description is simple, but with no annotations and no explicit note about whether the tool uses or affects sessions (given sibling tools like session_list and session_continue), the completeness is average. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself does not explain return values or prerequisites, leaving some 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?

The description provides meaningful Japanese explanations for both parameters: 'topic' as the topic to discuss and 'context' as additional context such as current design or issues. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds real semantic value beyond the raw string type.

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 states a specific verb ('discuss') and resource ('Codex CLI'), and clarifies the purpose: interactively deepen ideas and get alternative perspectives. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute' or 'generate' by emphasizing a conversational, idea-oriented function.

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 implies usage for interactive idea exploration ('対話的にアイデアを深掘り'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'review' or 'explain', nor does it give exclusions. It offers only implicit context rather than clear usage boundaries.

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