codex_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behavior: the journal is bounded, and a 'gap' means older events were evicted. It also warns against busy-polling. It could add error/return details, but the eviction caveat is valuable.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core read action, the eviction caveat, and the usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only journal tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the eviction pitfall, and the intended use case. The only notable gaps are the exact return shape and behavior when `after` is omitted, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that `after` is a sequence number representing the position in the event journal to read from. The schema only says integer; the description adds the domain meaning. It does not address what happens if `after` is omitted, but the core semantics are clear.

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 action and resource: 'Read the bounded event journal after a sequence number.' The qualifier 'bounded' and the recovery-use case make it clear this is the journal-read tool, distinct from the other codex_* action/status siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to recover results if channel delivery is unavailable.' It also gives a clear prohibition: 'do not busy-poll.' This is strong usage guidance even without naming an alternative sibling.

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