listSandboxFiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports batch queries with multiple paths,' which adds useful context beyond basic functionality, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., file metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and efficiently adds supporting details in two sentences without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information about functionality and usage context.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and some usage guidance but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and output format. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and 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 description coverage is 50% (only 'sandbox_id' has a description), and the description adds value by explaining that paths can be specified and batch queries are supported, which clarifies the 'path' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints for 'path' (e.g., whether it accepts arrays or wildcards), so it partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('List files and directories') and resource ('at specified paths within a sandbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listSandboxes' (which likely lists sandboxes rather than files within them), though the context implies this distinction.

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 usage by mentioning it 'can be used before downloadSandboxFiles to check if the file exists,' which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'listSandboxes' instead.

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