codex_app_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cursor-paginated' (indicating pagination) and the three actions, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether 'respond' is a mutating operation), authorization requirements, or what happens on error. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple action types.

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, readable sentence that efficiently lists the three operations and a key behavior (cursor-paginated). It is not overloaded with fluff, but it could be structured more clearly to separate the actions and their associated parameters.

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 11 parameters, 3 actions, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is severely under-specified. It gives any indication of return values, prerequisites, or how to use the 'respond' action meaningfully. The context is far from complete for an agent to invoke this tool 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%, and the description fails to explain any of the 11 parameters. For example, the 'action' enum is implied by the verbs 'poll', 'list', and 'respond', but there is no mapping to the rest parameters like 'answers', 'decision', 'execpolicyAmendment', etc. The description adds zero semantic value to 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 specific verbs and resources: 'Poll cursor-paginated thread events, list pending approvals/input, or respond to a deferred app-server request.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by enumerating three distinct actions tied to events and approvals. This is far more specific than a vague 'manage events'.

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 states what the tool can do but gives no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools like codex_app_thread or codex_app_review. There are no explicit alternatives or conditions for use; it merely implies functionality without context.

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