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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what data each aspect returns (reserved disk/price/charges, spending cap/retained-data deadline, latest recovery point), which helps the agent predict results. It still omits error/edge behavior and requires the id to resolve to an existing sandbox.

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 compact and every clause is a value-to-output mapping that earns its place. The opening fragment 'One aspect of a sandbox.' is fairly empty, but the enum listing is dense and front-loaded after it.

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 two-parameter read-only inspect tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it tells the agent exactly what each aspect yields. Remaining gaps are the meaning of `id` and any relation to sibling inspection tools, which are minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight, and it fully explains all four values of the `what` enum, which is the enum parameter. The `id` parameter is left unexplained, presumably because it is self-evident, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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 enum breakdown ('storage: reserved disk, price and charges', 'lifetime: persistence, spending cap...') makes it clear the tool retrieves one facet of a sandbox's state, matching the inspect verb in the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like runtime_sandboxes_metrics or runtime_sandboxes_list. The leading fragment 'One aspect of a sandbox' is weak but the enum glosses carry the meaning.

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 per-value descriptions implicitly guide which enum to pick for which question (want disk cost -> storage, want retention -> lifetime), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is a scoped read compared to broader siblings.

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