sandbox_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Show' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, which is useful implicit disclosure. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no auth, or how escalations are represented. For a status tool this is acceptable but leaves room for more explicit guarantees.

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 waste. The verb leads, and each listed item (root, triggers, pending escalations) earns its place by describing distinct output facets. Nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete — it states exactly what the status covers. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of when status is current or whether it reflects a snapshot), but these are not material for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for a 0-param tool, a 4 is appropriate — no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Show the sandbox root, triggers, and any pending escalations.' The verb 'Show' signals a read-only status operation, and the listed content (root, triggers, escalations) is concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the domain is distinct enough from run_privileged, request_path_access, fetch_url, and check_request that an agent can infer the purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this should be called before requesting access or that it's the safe inspection entry point. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the sibling list.

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