codex_app_thread

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'persistent' but omits side effects, permission requirements, or consequences of actions like archive, delete, or inject. Mutating actions are not flagged as such.

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 fluff. It is front-loaded with verbs, but the comma-separated list format is somewhat unstructure. Still, it earns its place as a summary.

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 tool has a large action surface (20+ enum values) and 31 parameters, yet the description covers only a subset of actions and zero parameter details. No output schema exists to clarify return values. The description is grossly inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 31 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only lists action verbs and does not explain any parameters (threadId, cwd, items, config, etc.). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters entirely ambiguous.

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 names the resource (persistent Codex threads) and lists several key actions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_app_turn. However, it omits many actions present in the enum (e.g., delete, inject, shell, terminals_list), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the action list.

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