Collect Artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral context: files land in the server's state directory, the tool cannot write on the developer's machine, and it must be used before sandbox destruction. It stops short of explaining edge-case behavior such as no matching patterns, but the disclosed storage location and limitations are meaningful and non-obvious.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, use cases are in the second sentence, and the critical path/pattern details are in the third. Every sentence contributes new information.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, path semantics, output location, and an important limitation. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or what happens if a pattern matches nothing, but an agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by detailing pattern semantics beyond the schema: workspace-relative shell globs, the '**/name' recursive form, and concrete examples. The experiment_id parameter is not further enriched, but the schema already explains it sufficiently.

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+resource: 'Copy selected files out of a sandbox before it is destroyed.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and emphasizes the critical timing constraint. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_sandbox_file by describing a copy-out operation rather than inline reading.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'USE THIS for build output, test reports, coverage, benchmark results or logs you want to keep or quote.' This is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the timing constraint 'before it is destroyed' and the restriction about not writing to the developer's machine provide clear operational context.

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