codex_app_rpc_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and serves as an escape hatch, implying it may permit RPC methods not in the allowlist. But it doesn't specify behavior for invalid or non-read-only methods, nor does it mention authentication, errors, or side effects.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core concept. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is strong.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly. Key aspects like supported methods, parameter structure, return format, and error conditions are absent. This is inadequate for a tool that appears to be an RPC endpoint.

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 mention 'method' or 'params' at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to explain how to construct the 'params' object or how the method string relates to the RPC API. This is a significant gap given the low schema description 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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch for a strict read-only RPC allowlist,' clearly indicating it handles read-only RPC calls outside the normal allowlist. It distinguishes from the sibling codex_app_rpc via the 'read-only' qualifier, though it lacks a direct verb like 'call' or 'invoke.'

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 'escape hatch' implies use when the standard allowlist does not cover a needed read-only method, and 'version-forward-compatible' suggests handling newer methods. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like codex_app_rpc.

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