get_routers_sandbox_clients

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: pagination ('paginated 1000 at a time') and an exclusion clause ('Clients that are allowed internet access due to sandbox disablement are not returned'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus the permission and endpoint URL. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get sandbox clients') and adds critical details without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it explains the resource, pagination, filtering by expiry, and permissions. It does not describe the return format or field structure, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what fields are returned could be helpful. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description only adds the pagination detail ('paginated 1000 at a time'), which relates to the 'page' parameter's description in the schema (which already states 'Page size is 1000'). The added value is minimal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get sandbox clients' and explains that it returns clients unsandboxed through the management API whose access has not expired. It also specifies what is not returned (clients allowed due to sandbox disablement), making the scope unambiguous. Among siblings, there is no other get sandbox clients tool, so differentiation is inherent.

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 the required permission ('Device command and configuration, View'), which guides usage. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to retrieve sandbox clients) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like post_routers_sandbox_clients. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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