codex_app_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution modes 'inline or detached' but does not explain what these mean, nor does it disclose whether the review is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output will be. This is insufficient for a 39-parameter tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Run the native app-server reviewer') and packs essential information about execution modes and targets without wasted words.

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's high complexity (39 parameters) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the reviewer does, what inputs are required beyond the targets, or what the result looks like. The description is too brief to contextualize the tool's full behavior.

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 39 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds only indirect hints about parameters like baseBranch, commit, and instructions by naming them as targets. It does not add meaningful semantic detail for the vast majority of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run the native app-server reviewer' against specific targets. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'inline or detached' and the various targets distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_app_status 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'against uncommitted changes, a base branch, a commit, or custom instructions.' This implies the tool is appropriate for review scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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