302AI Sandbox MCP Server

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 the core behavior (exporting to downloadable URLs) and constraints (supported file formats for directories), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if paths are invalid. It does not contradict annotations, as there are none.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in two concise sentences. Each sentence adds necessary information (batch support and file format constraints) without redundancy, making it efficient and 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 tool's moderate complexity (exporting files with constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits like file format restrictions, but could improve by addressing output format or error handling, which are not provided elsewhere.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic parameter meanings. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'path' can be multiple directories or files for batch export and specifying file format restrictions for directories, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema implies.

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 specific action ('Export files from a sandbox directory or file path to downloadable urls') and resource ('sandbox'), distinguishing it from siblings like listSandboxFiles (which lists files) or writeSandboxFiles (which writes files). It also specifies the scope of batch export and supported file formats for directories.

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 for when to use this tool (exporting files from a sandbox to downloadable URLs) and implies usage for batch operations and specific file types in directories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like listSandboxFiles for non-export purposes.

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