request_path_access

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 discloses critical behavioral traits: a human must approve, the sandbox performs the read/write on the agent's behalf, and the agent never receives the capability. This covers the most important asynchronous and security implications. It does not mention whether the operation is blocking or how to check approval status, but the core behavior is 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose upfront, and the second explains the approval process and parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is fairly complete for a tool that requires human approval. It covers the main flow (request, approval, sandbox performs) and key parameters (mode, content). It does not mention that the operation is asynchronous or that the agent should poll check_request for status, but given the sibling tools and the output schema, this is a moderate gap. Overall, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain 'mode' (valid values 'read' or 'write') and 'content' (used with write mode), which adds value. However, it does not clarify 'path' (though it's implied as the target file) or 'reason' (its purpose), leaving those parameters ambiguous. While partial compensation, the coverage gaps prevent a higher score.

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 tool's purpose: requesting a file operation outside the sandbox folder. It specifies the verb 'Request' and the resource 'a file operation', and the scope 'OUTSIDE the sandbox folder' differentiates it from siblings like run_privileged, fetch_url, check_request, and sandbox_status, which have distinct purposes. The distinction is explicit and leaves no ambiguity.

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 clear context: this tool is for file operations that need to happen outside the sandbox. It implies that for operations inside the sandbox, this tool is not needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it; rather, it relies on the reader to infer that other tools like run_privileged or fetch_url are for different resource types. This is clear context but no exclusions are stated.

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