codex_app_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining side effects and safety. The text does not disclose whether these actions are destructive, require specific permissions, or how interruption affects thread state. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate execution.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It immediately communicates the core actions and target resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Excellent conciseness.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual information about turn lifecycle, expected inputs, return values, or error handling. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation. The complexity demands significantly more detail.

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 adds minimal value for the parameters. It does clarify the 'action' parameter's allowed values, but the remaining 11 parameters (cwd, mode, model, effort, images, prompt, turnId, sandbox, outputSchema, approvalPolicy, approvalReviewer) are left unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states the tool's primary actions (start, steer, interrupt) on a specific resource (a turn on a loaded Codex thread). It distinguishes from siblings like codex_app_thread by focusing on turn-level control rather than thread management. The verb set is specific and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives such as codex_app_thread or codex_app_process. The description does not include any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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