tenki_list_workspace_sandboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace default and 'every sandbox' completeness context, but does not disclose pagination behavior or result format; not a serious gap for a list tool.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and scope and appends a concise use case. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description plus rich annotations and parameter schema are sufficient to call the tool correctly. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the response/pagination would be welcome, but it is not essential for invoking the 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 covers workspace_id and include_terminated with descriptions; description reinforces the workspace default but adds little meaning. page_size and page_token lack descriptions, but their standard pagination semantics and the description's 'every sandbox' claim make them reasonably interpretable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List every sandbox belonging to a specific workspace.' The workspace scope and default behavior distinguish it from the sibling tenki_list_sandboxes, so an agent can tell which listing tool to use.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('useful for spotting leaked, still-billing sandboxes across the workspace') that signals when this workspace-scoped listing is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the workspace-context is strong enough for selection.

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