codex_app_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full transparency weight. It discloses that jobs use a SQLite ledger and expose persisted identifiers, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details such as side effects of cancel/resume, asynchronous execution behavior, error handling, or durability guarantees beyond the ledger mention.

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 appropriately concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary actions and resource. It avoids fluff and gets to the point quickly, though a bit more detail could be packed without losing clarity.

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 multi-action tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools, this description is far from complete. It does not clarify how to choose between actions, what values are valid for request, the meaning of state, or what output to expect, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 parameter meaning, but it does not. It echoes the action enum with verbs like 'start' and 'cancel' but provides no explanation of jobId, kind, state, request, limit, or includeHistory, nor how these parameters interact with actions.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Start, inspect, resume, or cancel') and a defined resource ('durable background goal/turn jobs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing durability and persisted thread/turn identifiers, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'durable background goal/turn jobs' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the lifecycle verbs suggest common use cases. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus sibling tools like codex_app_goal or codex_app_turn, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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