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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by describing the exact state transition values, work-item fields, and the preflight relationship to sandbox_exec — useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The state description is front-loaded, the work-item fields are compressed into a parenthetical, and the usage guidance comes second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the state values and the fields of the work items. The main omission is the meaning of wallet_address, though the parameter name and the word 'user's' make it reasonably inferable. For a simple read-only status tool, the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the wallet_address parameter. It never mentions wallet_address at all; the only hint is the word 'user's' in the description and the parameter name itself. This is a notable gap for a required parameter.

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 resource — the user's session-sandbox state and the 20 newest work items — and enumerates the state values it returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sandbox_exec by telling the agent to check it before executing, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Check this before sandbox_exec, and to report what ran.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but it gives enough situational guidance for a read-only status tool.

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