createSandbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the sandbox automatically pauses after creation, reconnects for operations, and pauses again to avoid extra costs. It also notes that a sandbox_id is returned and required for subsequent operations. This covers important operational traits, though it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explaining functionality, sandbox_id usage, prerequisites, and behavioral traits like pausing and cost avoidance. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some ideas, but overall, it avoids unnecessary repetition and is well-structured.

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 complexity (a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on the return value format (beyond mentioning sandbox_id) and error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add specific meaning or usage details for parameters like 'envs', 'max_alive_time', 'metadata', or 'sandbox_name' beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'max_alive_time' implicitly by discussing costs, but no explicit parameter guidance is given, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a Linux sandbox that can execute code, run commands, upload and download files, and has complete Linux functionality.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('Linux sandbox'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that 'all other operations require the creation of a sandbox first,' except for directRunCode.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'all other operations require the creation of a sandbox first' and 'Except for directRunCode.' It implies that this is a prerequisite for most sandbox operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or detail alternatives beyond the directRunCode exception.

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