review_bind

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It usefully states the tool will not dispatch work or enforce scope, and that it binds to existing entities. However, it does not say whether the binding mutates state, is idempotent, requires permissions, or returns any confirmation.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful boundary information about what the tool does not do.

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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on prerequisites, expected parameter semantics, failure behavior, and when to choose this over sibling tools.

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 only indirectly maps taskId, originCodexTaskId, and dshSessionId to the local task, Codex task, and DSH session. The required 'scope' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Bind a local task to an existing Codex task and DSH session.' It also differentiates from siblings by noting what it does not do ('Does not dispatch work'), making the tool's role distinct from workflow_dispatch and similar dispatch-oriented tools.

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 when this tool is appropriate by clarifying it does not dispatch work or enforce scope, but it never explicitly states when to use it or names an alternative tool for those cases. The usage context is only inferable from the negative statements.

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