Your watch subscriptions and current cached verdicts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sandbox_watch_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it never says this is a read-only operation, whether it makes network calls, what happens when there are no subscriptions, or how fresh the 'current' verdicts are. The one useful hint ('current cached') does not compensate for the missing safety and side-effect information.
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?
It is a single short sentence fragment with no wasted words, but the missing verb leaves it structurally incomplete rather than front-loaded around an action.
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, so the description must convey what comes back, and 'watch subscriptions and current cached verdicts' says nothing about the shape, fields, or empty-state behavior. For a zero-parameter tool this is the only channel available, and it is underused.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to explain and it does not mislead about inputs.
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 names the resources ('watch subscriptions and current cached verdicts') but contains no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, polls, or reports status. It also overlaps with the sibling sandbox_cached_verdict, and nothing in the text distinguishes the two.
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 statement of when to call this tool instead of sandbox_cached_verdict or the other siblings, and no preconditions are given. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.