sandbox_analyze_binary

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers richly: unshare-all with no network, no capabilities, cgroup Mem/PID/CPU limits, read-only host, no host secrets, requires bwrap, target never executed. That covers safety profile, resource limits, prerequisites, and non-execution semantics — far beyond a typical tool description.

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?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator (ISOLIERT / bubblewrap), then a tight list of isolation properties, then the usage condition. Slightly dense with jargon but no wasted sentences.

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?

Behavioral and usage context is complete, and output schema covers returns. But with 0% parameter description coverage and no mention of path/floss semantics or the bwrap dependency failing, an agent calling this could be surprised. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% for both parameters, so the description should compensate but does not mention path or floss at all. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory (path, floss boolean) and the output schema exists. Baseline 3 for partially self-documenting params with no description support.

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+resource (sandbox_analyze_binary = analyze a binary isolated), and explicitly contrasts with sibling analyze_binary ('Wie analyze_binary, aber ISOLIERT...'). But it's phrased as a comparison and the actual analysis performed is never enumerated; an agent knows it's analysis-in-a-sandbox but not what output to expect beyond the output schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Für UNTRUSTED / fremde Samples' tells exactly when to prefer this over analyze_binary. The rest of the sentence describes the isolation guarantees that select this tool. Nothing left to inference.

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