agentsandboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'published' state constraint and single-item scope, with no detail on errors, auth, or returned content. It does not contradict 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose, scope, and key are all in the first clause. Nothing needs to be moved or removed.

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 simple single-resource read with a fully described parameter and rich safety annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose and lookup key. It omits return-value and error behavior, and does not route against search_listings, leaving minor gaps but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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 100% and documents the sole slug parameter, including pattern and length constraints. The description adds no format or syntax beyond repeating that lookup is by slug, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one published sandbox provider') along with the retrieval key ('by its slug'). The singular, slug-keyed scope distinguishes it from list_* and search_listings siblings, which enumerate or query rather than fetch one known resource.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative; the agent must infer that this is for exact-slug lookups rather than search_listings. The phrase 'by its slug' implies the required precondition, but there is no statement about when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling.

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?

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that counts are for published items and includes the last-changed timestamp, though it does not describe response structure in detail.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the operation and enumerates the returned statistics without filler. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 low complexity, empty parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned: counts of published providers, places, and categories, plus when data last changed. Annotations cover the remaining safety context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because the input schema is trivially empty and fully specified.

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: get counts of published sandbox providers, places, and categories plus last-changed time. This is clearly distinct from sibling list/search tools, which return records rather than aggregate statistics.

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 purpose implies it should be used for aggregate counts and freshness, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_categories, list_places, list_sources, or get_listing. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is that results carry provider counts. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether categories with zero providers are included, so with annotations carrying most of the burden this lands at an adequate 3.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the notable payload detail (provider counts) are front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 parameters, a trivial closed-world schema, and strong annotations, the description only needs to say what comes back — which it does by noting the provider counts. Without an output schema, slightly more detail on the return shape (e.g., whether counts are objects or flat fields) would be ideal, but the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('categories') and adds scope detail ('with their sandbox provider counts'), so the agent knows this returns aggregated category data rather than raw entries. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_places or list_sources, but the distinct resource noun makes the boundary inferable.

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 stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sources or get_stats. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only behavioral addition is the filtering constraint that only places with providers are returned, which is genuinely useful scoping but not rich disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier attached to the noun phrase. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 no-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with a full annotation set, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. The only shortfall is that with no output schema, the return shape (e.g. grouping by country/region and how cities nest) is left implicit.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not waste words describing nonexistent 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?

Clear verb ('List') plus the exact resources ('countries, regions and cities') and a scope qualifier ('that have sandbox providers'), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_categories or list_sources, but the resource domains are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery/enumeration call for available sandbox locations, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or how it relates to siblings such as list_sources. Acceptable for a simple zero-argument list tool, but there is an explicit gap.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds what data each source entry contains (license, refresh), which is useful but limited to content rather than behavior like pagination or ordering.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and return content without any filler. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return content. It could be slightly more complete by naming the fields in a source entry (e.g., name, URL), but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4 regardless of schema coverage.

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 (List) and resource (sources), and clarifies the content includes license and refresh. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools such as list_categories or list_places, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent can infer it's a simple read-only list, but nothing states when to prefer it over get_stats or other list siblings.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "published" scope and search dimensions; it does not discuss pagination behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and search dimensions are stated immediately, and every word 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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no required parameters, rich schema descriptions, and safety annotations, but no output schema. The description does not explain the paginated return shape, the absence of required filters, or how results relate to siblings, leaving some contextual gaps despite strong structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters in detail, including q, city, sort, limit, cursor, region, country and category. The description mentions text/place/category but adds no syntax, defaults, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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: "Search published sandbox providers." It also names the search dimensions (text, place, category), which distinguishes it reasonably well from get_listing and the list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage by saying it searches published sandbox providers by text, place and category, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention sibling tools such as get_listing or list_places as alternatives.

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