atlas_execution_sandbox

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 mentions 'safely executes,' 'isolated environment,' and 'timeout and resource limits,' which are important behavioral traits. It does not detail output format or error handling, but the core safety and constraint information is present.

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, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding language and constraint details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has five parameters, two required, and no output schema. The description gives a good overview of safety and scope but does not explain behavior such as return values, error scenarios, or how the 'input' and 'expectation' parameters are used. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an execution tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about supported languages and resource limits, which complements the schema but does not provide additional semantic meaning. This meets the baseline for high coverage without adding significant value.

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 executes code snippets safely in an isolated environment, with the purpose of testing before suggesting. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings focused on analysis, refactoring, or explanation. The mention of language support further clarifies scope.

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 phrase 'to test before suggesting' provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to safely try out code before presenting it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many sibling tools.

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