Sandboxd Code Run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral facts: one-shot isolated execution, the return payload (stdout, stderr, exit code, artifacts), and the pricing/free-tier auth model. It omits permission requirements and concurrency/rate-limit behavior beyond the free-call count, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single dense sentence with the return contract immediately after, so there is little waste. The trailing pricing clause is useful but slightly promotional, preventing a 5.

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 output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return values, and with 100% schema coverage the inputs are fully specified elsewhere. The one clear gap is sibling differentiation, which leaves the definition just short of 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., timeout or output semantics) beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Runs ... code in an isolated one-shot sandbox') and names the supported languages, which is far more than a tautology. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling execute-command, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling execute-command, nor any stated preconditions for calling it. The pricing line describes cost, not usage context, so an agent gets no routing help.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses sandbox isolation, the one-shot (non-persistent) execution model, the returned artifacts, and a rate/cost constraint ($0.002 per call, 3 free daily). It does not state required auth beyond implying an API key, nor network/filesystem limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and return values. The Daytona-compatibility and pricing parentheticals are dense but genuinely informational rather than filler.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers inputs and return shape adequately, but it omits the one thing an agent most needs: how this differs from execute-code and when to prefer it.

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 cwd, env, files, outputs, and timeout are already fully documented with constraints and formats. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs a shell command') plus the execution context ('isolated one-shot sandbox') and what it returns (stdout, stderr, exit code). The purpose is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling execute-code, leaving the agent to guess which runtime to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of execute-code as an alternative. The only usable context is the pricing and free-tier note, which tells the agent about cost but not about task selection.

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