call_codex_architect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: read-only, no file edits, no persistent chat, no synthetic fallback, uses the configured model. It omits operational traits an agent would want for a potentially slow external call (the 300s default timeout suggests long runtime), and says nothing about auth prerequisites beyond 'signed-in' or any rate/cost 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the negative constraints packed into the second sentence. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the no-side-effects profile is covered. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much undocumented — parameter meanings and disambiguation from codex_gui_ask are the notable holes.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — prompt, timeout, code_context, and workspace_path are never mentioned. An agent gets no guidance on what to put in code_context versus workspace_path, or how timeout interacts with the call's bounded nature.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ask the real signed-in Codex CLI') plus the domain ('code/architecture answer') and scope ('bounded read-only'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from synthetic/provider-API variants, but never names the obvious overlapping sibling codex_gui_ask, so the agent must guess between the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers 'use for read-only code/architecture questions.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as codex_gui_ask or call_antigravity_verifier, which matters with this many sibling tools.

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