codex_app_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that goals are persisted, autonomous, and run until terminal status, which is useful. However, it doesn't discuss side effects, resource usage, or prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. It's appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 tool with 34 parameters, 5 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It doesn't cover actions, requirements, or return behavior, making it inadequate for safe autonomous use.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 34 parameters. It provides no meaning beyond the bare types and enums in the schema, so the agent cannot infer parameter usage or relationships.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ("Start or manage") and resource ("persisted autonomous goal"), and adds context about the runtime generating continuation turns. However, it doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling tools like codex_app_process or codex_app_job.

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 implies usage for persisted autonomous goals that need continuation turns, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There's no guidance on choosing this vs. sibling tools.

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