writeSandboxFiles

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: batch import support, overwriting of existing files, automatic creation of non-existent directories, and the prerequisite of sandbox creation. This covers mutation, side effects, and prerequisites, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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, followed by essential behavioral details, all in four concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds critical information (batch support, overwrite behavior, directory creation, prerequisite), making it highly 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 complexity (mutation with prerequisites) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent, slightly reducing completeness.

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 both parameters ('sandbox_id' and 'file_list') and their nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the 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 specific action ('Import files from public URLs into a sandbox') and resource ('sandbox'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'createSandbox' (creation), 'downloadSandboxFiles' (export), and 'listSandboxFiles' (listing). It includes the verb 'import' and specifies the source ('public URLs'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'You must create a sandbox before calling this tool.' It also implies usage for batch imports and overwriting existing files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'downloadSandboxFiles' for export instead), which prevents a perfect score.

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