Context-first

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the tool has three distinct sub-tools with different purposes, auto-selects based on parameters unless overridden, and describes what each sub-tool does (search, isolation, merge/discard). It doesn't mention performance characteristics like rate limits or error handling, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: one sentence identifies the three sub-tools with their purposes, and a second sentence explains the auto-selection and override mechanism. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 sub-tools with different behaviors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool does and how to use it. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. However, for a sandbox tool with clear parameter guidance, it's mostly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic relationship between parameters: how 'action' overrides auto-selection, and how 'params' should be structured differently for each sub-tool (query for discover, name for quarantine, siloId+action for merge). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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: it's a sandbox with three specific sub-tools (discover, quarantine, merge) and explains their functions (semantic tool search, isolated state sandbox, merge/discard silo). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique multi-action nature and auto-selection behavior, which none of the listed sibling tools appear to share.

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 guidance on when to use each sub-tool: 'discover' for semantic search with query parameters, 'quarantine' for isolation with name parameter, and 'merge' for merging/discarding with siloId and action. It also explains the auto-selection logic and how to override it with the 'action' parameter, giving clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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