edr_sandbox_command

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's only added signal is the redundant "[READ]" prefix. It says nothing beyond the annotation about what the status field contains, whether the command must already exist, or what happens for an unknown command_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on being too terse to be useful, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond readOnly, the description should explain the identifier's origin and roughly what 'status' means. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid call.

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 0% for the single parameter command_id, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description does not explain what a command_id is, where it comes from (e.g., an earlier sandbox submission), or its format, leaving the one required input entirely undefined.

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 gives a verb ("Read") and a resource ("sandbox command status"), so the general intent is inferable. But it is ambiguous about whether it returns the status of one command identified by command_id or a collection, and it draws no distinction from siblings such as edr_sandbox_verdict, edr_sandbox_activities, or edr_sandbox_events.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool for related sandbox data (verdicts, activities, events). The agent must guess based on the tool name alone.

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