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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the reuse/create behavior and lists returned values (session_id, dev_stage_id, connection_id, connection_address). However, it omits critical prerequisites such as signing the sandbox agreement (huaweicloud_sandbox_sign_agreement) or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool that creates resources.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the core action and key behavior, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose and return values without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested git object, no output schema) and the presence of related sibling tools, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain prerequisites like signing the agreement or how the returned session_id should be used with other sandbox tools. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description fails to connect this tool to the broader sandbox workflow.

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 each parameter already has a description, including notes like 'only for new sandbox' for env, git, flavor_id, and template_id. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Connect to a sandbox via hdkitservice') and specifies the key behavior: it reuses an existing sandbox or creates a new one. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like huaweicloud_sandbox_exec_one_shot or huaweicloud_sandbox_check_user, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides context about reuse/create behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking for an existing sandbox first (e.g., via huaweicloud_sandbox_check_user) or that it is a prerequisite for session-based execution (huaweicloud_sandbox_exec_with_session). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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