sandbox_selftest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the exact invoked script and bwrap setup, and enumerates the two behaviors verified (network access fails, host writes fail) plus the PASS/FAIL-per-check output shape. It omits runtime/duration and any side effects of the selftest itself, keeping it at 4.

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?

Purpose and the target-analysis exclusion are front-loaded, then the mechanism, then the enumerated checks. It is dense but every clause earns its place; only slight verbosity in the German compound phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still previews the PASS/FAIL-per-check result format. For a zero-parameter verification tool, nothing an agent needs in order to decide or call it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage, empty properties) and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ("Beweist LIVE die Isolations-Garantien der AUSGELIEFERTEN Sandbox") and immediately scopes it against siblings with "keine Analyse eines Ziels", so an agent can distinguish it from sandbox_analyze_binary and the other analysis tools without opening a 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?

The parenthetical "keine Analyse eines Ziels" tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right choice (target analysis), which routes it toward the analyze_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating the trigger condition (e.g. "run after deploying the sandbox"), so a 4 rather than 5.

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