codex_gui_ask

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

With no annotations, the description does real work on failure semantics: it blocks until a completed reply, returns status=unconfirmed when nothing is observable, and never guesses or resends. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs — that this posts a real, non-retractable message into a live desktop chat, that the desktop app must be running and focused, and that the call blocks up to the timeout window.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the failure contract. No preamble and no wasted clauses.

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-shape explanation is rightly omitted, and the unconfirmed status is covered. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the two timing parameters and the blocking duration undefined — a meaningful gap for a call that can hold for up to 300 seconds by default.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it only obliquely hints at thread_id ("exact existing ... chat") and message ("one message"). poll_seconds and timeout_seconds are completely undocumented anywhere, despite governing the blocking behavior described in the text.

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 definition pairs a specific verb ("Send one message") with a specific resource ("exact existing ChatGPT/Codex desktop chat") and adds the blocking-wait semantic, so the action is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with nearby siblings such as antigravity_gui_followup or codex_gui_status, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Exact existing ... chat" implies a thread must already exist, which is the main usage precondition, but the description never states when to choose this over codex_gui_status, antigravity_gui_followup, or team_send_message. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.

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