layerfs_operator_sandbox_list

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

The second sentence adds real value beyond the annotations: it explains that discovery has a side effect (upstream may reclaim stopped Sandbox records), which accounts for readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false on what looks like a list call. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or what fields a record contains.

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?

Two short sentences: the primary purpose first, then the surprising side effect. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations, and every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only-ish discovery call with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names what comes back (sandboxes and their images) and warns about reclamation. Auth/permission requirements are the only notable omission.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The empty schema matches the parameterless claim in the description.

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?

Specific verb ("Discover") plus specific resource ("the project's Sandboxes and their images"), scoped to a project. It is clearly distinguishable from the many fs/workspace/branch siblings, though it does not name those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated: an agent can infer it is the discovery/enumeration call for sandboxes, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' nor any pointer to an alternative for related needs. The reclamation caveat gives partial context about when calling has consequences.

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