codex_app_rpc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the allowlist mechanism and the environment variable requirement for stateful methods. It adds valuable security/behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits error behavior or side-effect specifics.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately highlight the key security constraints. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a general-purpose raw RPC with no output schema and open-ended parameters. The description covers the security model but lacks return value expectations, error conditions, and how it relates to the sibling codex_app_rpc_read. It is minimally sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 does not explain the 'method', 'params', or 'timeoutSeconds' parameters. It implicitly ties 'method' to read/stateful categories but provides no concrete values, formats, or syntax, leaving users under-informed.

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 identifies the tool as a 'raw app-server RPC' and differentiates read vs stateful methods, which distinguishes it from siblings like codex_app_rpc_read. However, the actual action (invoking an RPC method) is implied rather than explicitly stated as a verb.

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?

It provides context on when to use the tool: read methods are allowed by default, while stateful methods need extra configuration. But it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use codex_app_rpc_read for safe read-only operations,' leaving the guidance implicit rather than a clear exclusion.

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