codex_groups

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about default grouping and origin switching, but does not explain pagination, cursor, or limit behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose, followed by the most important parameter behavior. It is appropriately sized, though the itemIds mention is slightly cryptic and could be clearer with minimal extra wording.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the tool still leaves three of four parameters semantically unexplained and lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling list tools like codex_list. The description is not sufficient for correct non-default calls involving query or cursor.

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 for all four parameters. It explains origin values (user default, official) but says nothing about limit, query, or cursor semantics. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 + resource ('按来源聚合本机内容') and clarifies that it returns itemIds that can be handed to codex_read, which helps distinguish it from read tools. It is somewhat terse but conveys the core purpose and default behavior.

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?

It clearly states the default query targets personal groups and that origin=official reads official groups. It also points the agent to codex_read as the destination for resulting itemIds, giving useful downstream routing context, though it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives.

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