Collect Artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that files land in the server's state directory, that the tool cannot write to the developer's machine, and that it is meant to run before sandbox destruction. It stops short of detailing edge cases like empty pattern matches or overwrite behavior, but the core side effects are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the primary use cases, and the pattern/destination details. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 only two required parameters and an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, how patterns work, where files go, and key constraints. No annotations are provided, but the description compensates with sufficient behavioral context.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already present. The description adds meaningful glob semantics beyond the schema: workspace-relative patterns, examples like 'dist/*.js', and the '**/name' recursive-search convention. This helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy selected files out of a sandbox before it is destroyed.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_sandbox_file, which reads a file without copying it out, and get_job_result, which returns job outputs.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS for build output, test reports, coverage, benchmark results or logs you want to keep or quote,' giving the agent clear triggering conditions. It also states a limitation ('cannot write anywhere on the developer's machine') that implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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