listSandboxes

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 that the tool queries sandboxes 'associated with the current API key,' which hints at authentication context, but it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (a read operation with 2 optional parameters) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks an output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.

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, clearly documenting both optional parameters (sandbox_id and sandbox_name) as filters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by stating 'If no parameters are passed, all current sandboxes will be returned,' which implies the default behavior but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Query the list of sandboxes associated with the current API key.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('sandboxes'), and distinguishes it from siblings like createSandbox or killSandbox. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from listSandboxFiles, which is a similar listing operation for files within a sandbox, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 some implied usage guidance: 'If no parameters are passed, all current sandboxes will be returned,' suggesting it's used for listing sandboxes, optionally with filters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listSandboxFiles or createSandbox, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in guidance.

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