codex_app_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that commands are argv arrays and that danger-full-access is an explicit governed option, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or what 'control' entails (e.g., write/resize/terminate actions). This is insufficient for a tool with write and terminate capabilities.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It conveys core details efficiently, though the brevity leaves many important aspects unaddressed.

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?

This is a highly complex tool with 17 parameters, 4 distinct actions, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only a small fraction of what an agent needs to know: it omits action semantics, lifecycle behavior, I/O handling, timeouts, error handling, and return values.

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 partially clarifies the 'command' parameter by noting it uses argv arrays and hints at the sandbox enum via 'danger-full-access', but 15 other parameters (cwd, env, tty, size, processId, etc.) remain completely unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs and controls app-server command/exec sessions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like codex_app_process by focusing on command/exec sessions rather than general process management.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codex_app_process, codex_app_rpc, or codex_app_fs. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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