run_sandbox_tests

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it runs in a disposable sandbox and pauses at a specific gate depending on outcome, which is meaningful state-transition context for a non-idempotent tool.

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 tightly worded sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the outcome-gate behavior follows as supporting detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description conveys the sandbox behavior and gate outcomes, but omits prerequisites (e.g. whether dbt artifacts must be generated first), leaving a small gap for a stateful pipeline step.

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 0% and the description says nothing about run_id. However, it is a single, self-explanatory identifier, so the practical risk of misuse is low. The description adds no parameter meaning, which caps this below the baseline-4 case for zero-parameter tools.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: 'Build the generated project with dbt in a disposable sandbox and reconcile metrics.' This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_dbt_artifacts and certify_run. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it is not, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 mention of the certification gate (success) and test-failures gate (failure), which places the tool in a pipeline, but it never states when to call it versus alternatives or what prerequisites must exist first. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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