drive_sandbox_clone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the experimental nature, infrastructure dependency, and error handling (graceful 503). It also notes sandbox persistence per workspace. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or success response, which would further aid transparency.

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-loaded with the purpose and key notes. It uses a clear [EXPERIMENTAL] tag and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. It also omits details like asynchronous behavior or cloning time. However, it covers prerequisites and error cases. The tool is complex, so more completeness would help.

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 describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds some context (e.g., workspace_id implies persistence, depth for shallow clones) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high.

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 clones a git repo into a per-workspace Linux sandbox. It specifies the verb 'clone' and distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_sandbox_exec, drive_sandbox_read, and drive_sandbox_commit, which perform different sandbox operations.

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 provides explicit context on requirements (Cloudflare Containers on AgentDrive worker) and graceful degradation behavior (503 on missing config). It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the sibling tools suggest different operations, so the usage context is clear enough.

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