scan_sandbox_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says the scan is read-only, non-destructive, or that it only reports results without deleting. 'Scan' implies detection, but that is an inference rather than a disclosed trait; nothing about side effects, scope limits, or result shape is stated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it omits useful context rather than wasting words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say what the scan returns (a report/list of candidates?) and confirm it makes no changes. It covers the object of the scan well but leaves the outcome and safety profile implicit.

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%, including a good explanation of minAgeMinutes and the rationale for avoiding in-use files. The description's 'optional file age threshold' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) plus the resource (target workspace) and enumerates what it looks for: dangling test outputs, agent scratches, bloated caches. It is clear it's a detection tool, implicitly distinct from clean_sandbox_artifacts, though the description never names that sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to clean_sandbox_artifacts or inspect_dangling_dev_ports. The scan-then-clean workflow is only inferable from the sibling names, not stated.

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