## Why
Extension tools were split across two public runtime contracts:
`codex-tool-api` exposed `ToolBundle` plus its own call/spec/error
types, while core native tools used `codex_tools::ToolExecutor`. That
made contributed tool specs and execution behavior easy to drift apart
and added another crate boundary for what should be one executable-tool
seam.
This PR makes `ToolExecutor` the single runtime contract and keeps
extension-specific pinning in `codex-extension-api`.
## Remaining todo
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/22369/changes#diff-b935ea8245c3ce568a30cff660175fa6390b66b872ae409e1e2e965738250741R5
Either generic `Invocation` or sub-extract the `ToolCall` and clean
`ToolInvocation`
## What changed
- Removed the `codex-tool-api` workspace crate and its dependencies from
core and `codex-extension-api`.
- Made `codex_tools::ToolExecutor` object-safe with `async_trait` so
extension contributors can return a dyn executor.
- Added the extension-facing aliases under
`ext/extension-api/src/contributors/tools.rs`, including
`ExtensionToolExecutor = dyn ToolExecutor<ToolCall, Output =
ExtensionToolOutput>`.
- Changed `ToolContributor::tools` to return extension executors
directly instead of `ToolBundle`s.
- Updated core’s extension tool handler/registry/router path to adapt
those extension executors into the existing native `ToolInvocation`
runtime path.
- Added focused coverage for extension tools being registered,
model-visible, dispatchable, and not replacing built-in tools.
## Verification
- `cargo test -p codex-tools`
- `cargo test -p codex-extension-api`
Part 1 of guardian as extension. This bind all the logic to spawn
another agent from an extension and it adds `ThreadId` in the start
thread collaborator
## Why
This is the next narrow step toward moving concrete tool families out of
core. After #22138 introduced `codex-tool-api`, we still needed a real
end-to-end seam that lets an extension own an executable tool definition
once and have core install it without the temporary `extension-api`
wrapper or a dependency on `codex-tools`.
`codex-tool-api` is the small extension-facing execution contract, while
`codex-tools` still has a different job: host-side shared tool metadata
and planning logic that is not “run this contributed tool”, like spec
shaping, namespaces, discovery, code-mode augmentation, and
MCP/dynamic-to-Responses API conversion
## What changed
- Moved the shared leaf tool-spec and JSON Schema types into
`codex-tool-api`, so the executable contract now lives with
[`ToolBundle`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/c538758095337d4fe0a52a172363ccede4066bda/codex-rs/tool-api/src/bundle.rs#L19-L70).
- Replaced the temporary extension-side tool wrapper with direct
`ToolBundle` use in `codex-extension-api`.
- Taught core to collect contributed bundles, include them in spec
planning, register them through
[`ToolRegistryBuilder::register_tool_bundle`](https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/c538758095337d4fe0a52a172363ccede4066bda/codex-rs/core/src/tools/registry.rs#L653-L667),
and dispatch them through the existing router/runtime path.
- Added focused coverage for contributed tools becoming model-visible
and dispatchable, plus spec-planning coverage for contributed function
and freeform tools.
## Verification
- Added `extension_tool_bundles_are_model_visible_and_dispatchable` in
`core/src/tools/router_tests.rs`.
- Added spec-plan coverage in `core/src/tools/spec_plan_tests.rs` for
contributed extension bundles.
## Related
- Follow-up to #22138
## Why
`codex-core` still owns a growing amount of product-specific behavior.
This PR starts the extraction path by introducing a small, typed
first-party extension seam: features can install the contribution
families they actually own, while the host keeps lifecycle and state
ownership instead of pushing a broad service locator into the API.
See the `examples/` for illustration
## Known limitations
* Tool contract definition will be shared with core
* Fragments must be extracted
* Missing some contributors
jif-oai ·