wait_codex_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the core waiting behavior but does not mention timeout semantics (e.g., default 30s), whether it blocks indefinitely, what happens on timeout or error, or whether it returns the agent's final output.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is easy to parse and directly conveys the tool's primary action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as timeout behavior, interaction with other agent management tools, and when to prefer waiting versus polling status. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse to fully guide correct usage.

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 description does not mention agent_id or timeout at all. The agent must infer parameter purposes from names alone, which is insufficient given the absence of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('background Codex agent') with a clear completion condition ('finish its current turn'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like spawn, send, list, and close by focusing on the waiting aspect.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention how this differs from status or other session monitoring tools, nor does it state prerequisites or common usage patterns.

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