codex_app_runtime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operator gate requirement for restart, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe potential side effects of restart (e.g., connection drop) or details about the metrics output, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is 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 simple (one parameter, no nested objects), and the description covers the core actions. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the metrics return or what happens after restart, leaving some context incomplete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the two enum values: 'Read gateway counters' maps to 'metrics' and 'explicitly restart' maps to 'restart.' This adds meaning beyond the raw enum list, though it doesn't explicitly name the parameter 'action.'

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 dual functionality: 'Read gateway counters or explicitly restart the owned app-server connection.' This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_app_status or codex_app_rpc_read by its focus on runtime counters and connection restart.

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 implies usage: use this tool to read counters or restart the connection. It provides one explicit precondition: 'Restart requires the unsafe RPC operator gate.' However, it does not offer alternative tool guidance or exclusions, so the guidance is clear but not comprehensive.

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