codex_app_lane

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It names operations like 'prepare' and 'run' but does not disclose whether these mutate state, require auth, or have side effects on the filesystem. The phrases 'isolated' and 'background a turn' give weak hints, but the tool's mutational footprint and operational behavior remain opaque.

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?

One dense but concise sentence that leads with action verbs and names the core resource. It is efficient and not padded, though the slash-separated list of operations makes it slightly hard to parse quickly.

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 high-complexity tool with 26 parameters, 7 action variants, and no output schema or annotations. A single-sentence overview cannot possibly cover behavior, return values, workflow steps, or parameter relationships, leaving the agent without critical context for safely using operations like start vs run or poll.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for 26 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It only loosely mirrors the action enum via words like 'run' and 'poll', but parameters such as lane, jobId, delivery, approvalPolicy, baseRef, and outputSchema are entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the extremely low schema coverage.

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 enumerates specific operations (prepare, list, diff, run/background, poll, review) and ties them to isolated codex/* git worktrees and the app-server, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like codex_app_turn or codex_app_review, but the worktree/lane resource is distinctive enough.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as codex_app_turn, codex_app_review, or codex_app_job. The description implies coverage of lane/worktree lifecycle operations but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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