codex_consult

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Technical consultation' implies an advisory, read-only activity, but the description does not state whether this tool modifies anything, what kind of response it returns, whether it invokes external models, or what limitations apply. For an unannotated tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and consulting domains. It could add more detail while remaining concise, but as written it is appropriately compact.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return values, side-effect profile, or how this tool differs from codex_review and codex_explain. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall contextual picture is incomplete.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented by the schema. The description's domain list roughly mirrors the topic enum values, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as providing technical consultation and specifies the domains: architecture decisions, design patterns, technology choices, and implementation strategies. This is more informative than the bare name and gives an agent a solid sense of the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tools codex_explain and codex_review.

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 listed consultation areas imply when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over codex_explain or codex_review, and no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. The context is clear but the routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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