codex_app_discover

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, what 'live' implies, whether external calls are made, or any side effects. The bare noun list leaves the agent without important safety or operational context.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the discoverable resources. It is efficiently written with no redundant filler, though the enumeration is somewhat long. It earns its place by covering most of the action values.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It provides no information on return formats, pagination, error behavior, or the meaning of the additional parameters, making it insufficient for a complex discovery tool.

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 compensate for parameter documentation. It provides no explanation of 'cwds', 'force', 'limit', 'cursor', 'detail', or 'action' semantics beyond listing some enum values in prose. It fails to clarify the meaning or usage of the other five 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 a clear verb 'Discover' and enumerates the target resources (models, features, MCP servers, apps, etc.), which conveys the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'codex_app_status' or 'codex_app_rpc_read', and it omits the 'config_requirements' action from the schema, so it's not a perfect differentiator.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description simply states what it does, offering no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose an alternative.

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