codex_answer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action and the preference-vs-context decision rule, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether answering finalizes the request, whether it can be called multiple times, or any permissions or rate limits. The 'Ask the user' line reads as guidance to the agent rather than a behavior of the tool itself.

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 two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the decision rule is stated in the second sentence. It is compact and readable, though slightly terse in phrasing like 'all question IDs.'

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 tool with a nested answers object, three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the answer-content decision rule. It leaves open details such as threadId semantics, multi-string answer arrays, and postconditions, so an agent can call it correctly but with some uncertainty.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate; it does so by mapping 'requestId' and 'all question IDs' to identifiers in the schema. It does not clarify the role of threadId or explain why each answer value is an array of strings. This is partial compensation but not enough to fully document the parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Answer' with a clear resource (a Codex question) and identifies the required identifiers ('requestId' and 'all question IDs'). This distinguishes it from siblings like codex_start, codex_message, and codex_stop, which handle other phases of the Codex interaction. However, 'Codex question' is not deeply defined, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a conditional rule for content: 'Ask the user when the answer requires their preference; otherwise answer from the task context.' This tells the agent how to decide what to put in the answers, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among sibling tools. The trigger ('Answer a Codex question') implies when the tool applies, but that is left to inference.

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