edr_sandbox_events

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description's [READ] marker merely repeats that. It adds nothing beyond annotations—no pagination behavior for limit/next_cursor, no statement of what a sandbox event contains, no auth or rate-limit context, and no return-shape hints despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency—the single sentence carries no substantive content beyond the name. The redundant [READ] prefix duplicates readOnlyHint instead of earning its space.

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 tool with a required hash parameter, pagination parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what it will receive back or how to page through results from this definition alone.

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% across three parameters, and the description supplies no compensating meaning. It never explains that sha2 is a required file hash used to look up the sandbox report, what limit defaults to (30) or bounds it, or how next_cursor is obtained and reused for paging.

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?

"[READ] Read sandbox events" essentially restates the tool name (edr_sandbox_events) with a read-only tag. It names the resource but gives no scope, no content of what a 'sandbox event' is, and nothing to distinguish it from siblings like edr_sandbox_activities, edr_sandbox_command, edr_sandbox_verdict, or edr_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 at all: no indication of when sandbox events are preferable to edr_events, edr_sandbox_activities, or edr_sandbox_verdict. The bracketed [READ] implies retrieval only, but no exclusions or alternatives are offered, leaving the agent to guess among seven sandbox-related siblings.

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