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

With no annotations, description partially discloses behavior: creates a VM, returns sandboxId. Does not mention cost, resource limits, or security implications.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key action and return value, no wasted words.

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 3 optional params with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out return format details and cost implications.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add meaning beyond schema defaults and max values.

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 it creates a new E2B cloud sandbox (secure Linux VM) and returns a sandboxId. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are operations on existing sandboxes.

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 implies this is the first tool to use (since it returns sandboxId used by others), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. Among siblings, it's the creation tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions a presigned URL implies time-limited access, but does not mention authentication, URL expiration, or any side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and followed by examples.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete. It could note that the URL is time-limited, but overall sufficient.

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 schema already explains both parameters adequately. Description adds 'Absolute path' for path param, which is helpful but not essential given schema.

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?

Clearly states it gets a presigned URL to download a file from the sandbox, specifying file types (build artifacts, logs). Differentiates from sibling tools like sandbox_get_url which likely gets the sandbox URL itself.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to retrieve build artifacts, logs, or any file from the sandbox', implying use cases but no guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives like sandbox_file_read.

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

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

Describes output (stdout, stderr, exit code) but no annotations exist. Mentions sandbox execution safety implicitly (sandbox), but lacks details on resource limits, state changes, or side effects. Fair for a command execution 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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, output, and typical use cases. No fluff. Front-loaded with key action and result.

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 sandbox execution tool with 5 params and no output schema, description clearly states what it returns and examples. Could mention exit code specifics or error handling, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra param info beyond schema, but given full coverage, baseline is 3. Slight bonus for clarifying command examples in description, aiding agent understanding.

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?

Clearly states 'Execute a shell command in a sandbox' with specific verb (execute) and resource (shell command in sandbox). Lists output types (stdout, stderr, exit code) and example usages (builds, tests, installs). Distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_exec_background.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'running builds, tests, installs, or any CLI command.' However, no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like sandbox_exec_background for async runs.

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

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

The description explicitly states the key non-blocking behavior and gives example use cases. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the process output can be retrieved later, how to manage the background process (e.g., via process list/kill tools), or what happens if the sandbox is stopped. This leaves gaps for a background execution 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?

The description is concise (one sentence with an example) and front-loaded with the key behavior. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the use case from the return behavior. Overall, it is efficient and earns a 4.

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 complexity (background execution, sandbox, multiple parameters) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core async behavior but lacks details on lifecycle management, error cases, and how to retrieve results. Sibling tools like sandbox_process_list and sandbox_process_kill provide complementary functionality, but the description does not mention them.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for each field (e.g., sandboxId, command). The description mentions 'sandbox' and 'command' implicitly, but does not add new meaning. Baseline 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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'a background process in a sandbox', with concrete examples ('dev server, file watcher'). It is distinct from sibling tools like sandbox_exec (which likely blocks) and effectively communicates its purpose.

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 implies this tool is for long-running processes by stating 'Returns immediately without waiting for completion', but does not explicitly contrast with sandbox_exec or other alternatives. It provides no guidance on when not to use it, such as for commands that need output. The sibling context suggests sandbox_exec as an alternative, but the description does not mention it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It clearly states the tool returns boolean without error, which is key behavioral info. However, it doesn't mention permissions or side effects, which is minor given the read-only nature.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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 simplicity, no output schema, and rich sibling context, the description adequately covers essential details. The lack of output schema is compensated by stating the boolean return. Could mention that path must be absolute, but schema already specifies.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description does not add further semantics beyond schema, but that's acceptable.

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 checks existence of a file or directory in a sandbox, and specifies it returns true/false without error. This distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_file_info which would throw or return details.

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 implies usage for existence checking, and the mention of 'no error' contrasts with tools that would throw. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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

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

The description discloses the tool retrieves metadata (size, type, permissions), making its read-only nature clear. However, it does not specify if the file must exist, what happens with non-existent paths, or any error conditions (e.g., permission issues). With no annotations provided, the description covers basic behavioral aspects but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and immediately informative. However, it could be slightly more structured by clearly separating input constraints from output info, but overall it's efficient.

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 has 2 parameters with complete schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, without annotations or output details, the agent lacks information about permission requirements, behavior on missing files, and exact return format. It is complete enough for basic usage but not for error handling or advanced scenarios.

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?

Both parameters (sandboxId, path) are documented in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only summarizes the outcome. Thus, the description adds no extra parameter context, earning a baseline 3.

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 retrieves metadata from a sandbox for a file or directory, specifying the exact attributes (size, type, permissions). This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like sandbox_file_list (which lists entries) and sandbox_file_exists (which checks existence).

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 implies the tool should be used when metadata like size or permissions is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over sandbox_file_list (which might provide similar info for multiple files) or sandbox_file_exists (just boolean). No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the AI to infer usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the listing is recursive, what happens if the path is a file, if hidden files are included, or error handling. The basic purpose is stated but lacks depth for safe usage.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It uses active voice and clearly identifies the action. No unnecessary words, though it could add a bit more context without being verbose.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return format (e.g., list of file names with metadata) and any quirks (e.g., behavior on error). It does not, making it incomplete for the complexity of a file-listing operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, but the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics. Baseline 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 lists files and directories in a sandbox path, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'files and directories'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sandbox_file_info (which gets metadata) and sandbox_file_read (which reads content), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_file_exists, sandbox_file_info, or sandbox_file_read. There is no mention of directory listing behavior for non-existent paths or permissions issues.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions creation of parent directories, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the directory already exists, or if any permissions are needed. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it could include a brief note on behavior (e.g., idempotency) without adding much length.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention edge cases like existing directories, error handling, or return value. For a straightforward creation tool, it covers the basics.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters (sandboxId and path). It mentions 'parent directories' but does not elaborate on path format constraints.

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 creates a directory and its parent directories in a sandbox. It includes the verb 'create' and specific resource 'directory', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sandbox_file_write or sandbox_file_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other file operations like sandbox_file_remove or sandbox_file_exists. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring that the sandbox already exists, or when to use alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description's minimal content places burden on the agent. It states 'read' (non-destructive) but lacks details on encoding, binary handling, or error behavior (e.g., file not found).

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?

Description is a single sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return format (e.g., text, JSON) or limitations (e.g., file size). The sibling tools reveal a rich sandbox ecosystem, so an agent may need guidance on when to use this vs. other file tools.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond stating 'file in a sandbox.' The schema already defines sandboxId and path precisely, so a baseline 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 'Read the contents of a file in a sandbox,' specifying the verb (Read) and resource (file in a sandbox). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sandbox_file_write (writing) and sandbox_file_info (metadata).

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 no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention file types, size limits, or contrast with sandbox_get_url (which reads URLs instead of local files).

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

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

The description does not indicate whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether directories are deleted recursively, or what happens if the file/directory doesn't exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to address.

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, consisting of a single short sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (only two parameters) and no output schema, the description is borderline adequate. However, it omits critical behavioral details like recursive deletion behavior, error handling for nonexistent paths, and whether reversion is possible, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (sandboxId, path) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 function: deleting files or directories in a sandbox. It includes the verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource ('file or directory in a sandbox'). While it effectively distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_file_list (list) and sandbox_file_read (read), it could more explicitly contrast with sandbox_file_mkdir (create) or sandbox_file_rename (rename).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_exec rm or operations on directories. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), safety considerations, or explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is renaming/moving, but does not mention that the operation is destructive (overwrites existing file at newPath), whether authentication is needed, or if the sandbox must be active. This is a significant omission for a mutation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. No wasted words.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and 3 required parameters, the description should provide more context about return values, error conditions, and side effects. It is incomplete for an agent to use safely.

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 has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema provides sufficient semantic information.

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 uses specific verbs 'rename' and 'move' targeting a file or directory in a sandbox. It clearly states the resource (file/directory) and the operation (rename/move). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sandbox_file_write or sandbox_file_remove, though the action is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_file_mkdir or sandbox_file_remove. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or limitations (e.g., cannot move across sandboxes). Sibling tools perform other file operations but no contrast is given.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool creates parent directories and overwrites existing files, which are important behaviors beyond the typical file write. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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 only two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then provide key behavioral details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 that the tool has 3 required parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema (so return format is not expected to be detailed), and sibling tools exist for related operations, the description is complete enough. It covers behavior (overwrite, directory creation) that is critical for safe usage.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (sandboxId, path, content) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Write content' and resource 'file in a sandbox', clearly indicating the action. The sibling tools sandbox_file_read, sandbox_file_remove, etc. are distinct, so it is well differentiated.

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 mentions 'Creates parent directories automatically. Overwrites if file exists.' which implies when to use (writing new or existing files) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like sandbox_file_mkdir or sandbox_file_read.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'running in the sandbox' indicating it only works for active sandboxes, which is useful. However, it doesn't discuss underlying behavior like port mapping, latency, or that the URL may be temporary.

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 sentences, clear and direct. First sentence states action, second provides usage context. No wasted words.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and example ports. Could mention URL format or that the sandbox must be running, but not necessary.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra details about parameters beyond naming them. It does imply the port should be for HTTP services, but the schema already describes them adequately.

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 gets a public URL for a port inside a sandbox, specifying it's for HTTP services and browser access. It distinguishes from other sandbox tools (e.g., sandbox_exec, sandbox_upload_url) by focusing on port exposure.

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 explicitly says when to use ('to access dev servers, web apps, or any HTTP service running in the sandbox from a browser'). Since there are no siblings providing similar functionality, no alternatives are needed, and the guidance is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It does state the three actions and that branchName is required for create/checkout, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether switching branches causes file changes, or if listing shows remote/ local branches.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb 'Manage'. Every word contributes, though it could be improved by removing 'in a sandbox repository' since that's implied by the tool name.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the actions but lacks details on return values (e.g., a list of branches), error cases, or behavior when branchName is omitted incorrectly.

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 coverage is 100% and description adds value by clarifying the action enum and branchName dependency. The branchName requirement for specific actions is well explained.

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 specifies the tool manages git branches with three actions (list, create, checkout), clearly indicating what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling git tools like sandbox_git_clone or sandbox_git_push, which operate on branches too but with different verbs.

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 no guidance on when to use this vs other git tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., sandbox must exist, repo must be initialized) or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that cloning is writing to the sandbox and that private repos require GITHUB_TOKEN, but does not mention whether the operation is destructive or has side effects on existing files.

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 concise sentences, each adding value. No wasted words, 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?

For a cloning tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description covers essential purpose and a key constraint (private repo support). It lacks details on return values or error cases, but these are often implicit in clone operations.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so 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 specific action (clone a GitHub repository into a sandbox) and distinguishes it from other sandbox tools. It also mentions support for private repos, adding specificity.

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 implies usage for cloning into a sandbox and notes private repo support via GITHUB_TOKEN, but does not explicitly compare with similar tools like sandbox_git_init or sandbox_git_pull, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description indicates file staging and commit creation, but it does not mention whether this has side effects (e.g., modifying repository history) or what permissions are required. It lacks details on behavior like handling of untracked files or commit signing.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is efficient and contains no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the optional nature of files, but it is already adequate.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or the commit process (e.g., whether it creates a new commit or amends). The presence of sibling git tools suggests more integration context would be helpful.

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 each parameter already has a basic description. The description adds that omitting 'files' stages all changes, which provides a slight improvement over the schema. However, no additional context is given for other parameters like authorName or authorEmail beyond the schema.

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 action ('stage files and create a git commit') and the context ('in a sandbox repository'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other sibling tools like sandbox_git_status or sandbox_git_clone.

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 indicates that staging is included as part of committing, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus other git-related sibling tools (e.g., sandbox_git_push, sandbox_git_branch). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It correctly implies the action is non-destructive (initializing a repo doesn't destroy data), but does not mention if it overwrites existing git repositories, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It could be slightly improved by removing redundancy (e.g., 'directory' is implied by 'sandbox'), but overall it is efficient.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states the core function, but lacks context on error states (e.g., if the path already contains a git repo), which would be helpful for an agent.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('sandboxId' and 'path'), so coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema states, 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 action ('Initialize a new git repository') and the context ('in a sandbox directory'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling git tools like sandbox_git_clone or sandbox_git_branch, missing an opportunity to clarify that this is for creating a fresh repository, not cloning or branching.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_git_clone. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the sandbox must be running) or mention that the path should be empty or non-existing. An agent would need to infer usage from context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'pull latest changes' but does not specify that pulling can cause merge conflicts, modifies the working directory, or requires a previously cloned repo. No side effects or failure modes are mentioned.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient. However, it could be more informative without being longer.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention that the tool requires an existing git repository (implied by siblings), or what the return value or side effects are. For a git operation, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema describes all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the action ('Pull latest changes') and the resource ('remote repository in a sandbox'), but is generic. Among sibling tools like sandbox_git_clone, sandbox_git_push, and sandbox_git_status, this description does not differentiate when to use pull vs clone or fetch.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sandbox_git_clone for first-time clone, or sandbox_git_fetch which doesn't exist). No prerequisites or conditions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for GITHUB_TOKEN (authentication requirement) and implies the action is a push (which may overwrite remote history). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., force-push behavior, conflict outcomes) or rate limits. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 long, with the primary action in the first sentence and a key prerequisite in the second. No superfluous 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?

Given the tool's complexity (standard git push operation, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is functionally complete enough for an agent to understand the basic action. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions (e.g., if no commits exist, or authentication fails) and does not explain the return value or confirmation. With low complexity and good schema coverage, a 3 is adequate.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not mention parameters, which is acceptable since the schema covers them. Baseline 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Push commits to a remote repository') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sandbox_git_pull, sandbox_git_clone, and sandbox_git_commit. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 states 'Requires GITHUB_TOKEN for authentication', providing a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sandbox_git_commit for local commits, sandbox_git_pull for fetching). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return information (current branch, modified/staged/untracked files), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or authentication/permission requirements, nor the exact format of the output (e.g., whether it returns raw git output or structured data). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and informative, containing all key elements: verb, resource, and expected output. No filler words. Excellent for a tool with few parameters.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool (generic git status), no output schema, and only 2 parameters fully described in schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from briefly noting that it requires an existing git repository or that it is equivalent to 'git status' output, but current description suffices for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (sandboxId, repoPath) described in the schema. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as valid sandbox ID formats or path conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'git status of a repository in a sandbox'. It lists the returned information (current branch, modified/staged/untracked files), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sandbox_git_branch (which only gets branch info) and sandbox_file_list (file listing without git status).

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 implies usage when needing git status in a sandbox, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., sandbox_git_branch) or when not to use it (e.g., if only branch name is needed). No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations to leverage. Description doesn't mention read-only nature, response format, or any side effects. For a non-destructive info tool, stating read-only would help.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

While the tool is simple (1 param), the description lacks specification of what 'details' includes. With no output schema, agent needs to know return structure.

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 has 100% coverage on one parameter, so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is acceptable.

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 retrieves details about a specific sandbox, but 'details' is vague compared to siblings like sandbox_info vs sandbox_list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like sandbox_list or sandbox_file_info. Agent must infer based on 'details'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the non-destructive action (extending timeout) but omits details like whether the sandbox must be running, if the new timeout resets a timer, or what happens on failure. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys all necessary purpose information with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and 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?

The tool has a simple input schema (2 simple params) and no output schema, making it relatively uncomplex. The description is adequate for the basic functionality but could be more complete by mentioning what the response indicates (e.g., new expiry time).

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters (sandboxId and timeoutMs).

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 uses a specific verb ('extend') and resource ('sandbox timeout'), and clearly explains the purpose: to prevent automatic termination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sandbox_kill (which terminates) and sandbox_info (which queries state).

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 implies a usage context (preventing timeout), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like sandbox_create or sandbox_resume, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Clearly states destructive side effect: all data destroyed. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does so completely.

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 sentences, no filler, each sentence adds essential information: what it does and the consequence.

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?

Single parameter, no output schema required; description covers the action and irreversible nature fully. No gaps given tool simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'sandboxId' with description stating 'The sandbox ID to terminate.' Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Verb 'Terminate and clean up' clearly states action, resource is 'sandbox', and 'destroyed' emphasizes finality. Sibling tools like sandbox_pause or sandbox_keep_alive do not destroy the sandbox, making this unique.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to terminate and clean up. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the uniqueness is clear from sibling names.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it lists active sandboxes; does not mention that it returns sandbox IDs or what happens if no sandboxes exist. Lacks details on pagination or filtering, but given zero parameters, listing is straightforward.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with key information. Ideal conciseness for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. However, it could mention that it returns sandbox identifiers (e.g., IDs) or use cases, but not critical.

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?

Zero parameters, schema coverage 100%, so description need not add param info. Description confirms no input required, which is consistent with schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'active E2B sandboxes managed by this server', distinguishing this tool from siblings like sandbox_info (single sandbox details) and sandbox_kill (terminate sandbox). It specifies scope: 'active' and 'managed by this server'.

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?

Description implies usage for listing active sandboxes but provides no guidance on when to use this instead of sandbox_info or sandbox_exec. No explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned. However, with zero parameters, the usage is self-evident.

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

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: sandbox persists across sessions, does not count against timeout, and can be resumed. This goes beyond a simple 'pause' verb, giving the agent important operational details. However, it doesn't mention if there are costs or limits on paused sandboxes.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and followed by clarifying details. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, effect, and relationship to resume. Given the simple tool (single parameter, no output schema), it is complete enough. It could mention persistence or cost implications, but not essential for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100% with one required parameter 'sandboxId' described simply as 'The sandbox ID to pause.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, 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 action ('Pause a sandbox') and the resource ('sandbox'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that it preserves state and can be resumed later with sandbox_resume, differentiating it from sandbox_kill which would destroy the sandbox.

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 clear usage context: pausing preserves state for later resumption. It mentions the alternative (sandbox_resume) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., vs sandbox_kill). However, the context implies it's for temporary halts.

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

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

Description indicates a destructive action (kill process) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., orphaned processes, resource cleanup) or permission requirements. No annotations to rely on, so the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, the second provides a critical usage hint. Every word 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 simple tool (two required params, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks details on what happens on success/failure (e.g., error codes), but that is acceptable for a straightforward kill operation.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description reinforces that pid comes from sandbox_process_list. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying the relationship between 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?

Clearly states the verb (Kill), resource (a running process in a sandbox), and the required identifier (PID). Distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_process_list or sandbox_kill by focusing on a specific process within a sandbox.

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?

Explicitly tells where to obtain the PID by referencing sandbox_process_list, which is a key usage hint. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if process is part of a group kill scenario) or alternatives beyond the list command.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is a read operation (listing processes) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the process list is a snapshot, whether it includes hidden processes, or if authentication or permission checks are required. The description is straightforward but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes specific details about what is listed (commands, PTY sessions) and what information is shown (PID, command, arguments). No extraneous words.

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 low complexity (one input parameter, simple list output) and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It describes the input (sandboxId) and the output (list of processes with details). It could be improved by noting that the tool lists all processes in the sandbox, but it is already clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the required sandboxId parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the parameter name and schema description provide. No parameter details are elaborated 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all running processes (commands and PTY sessions) in a sandbox, specifying the output includes PID, command, and arguments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sandbox_kill, sandbox_process_kill, and sandbox_exec by focusing on listing processes rather than creating, killing, or managing them.

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 implies use when you need to inspect running processes in a sandbox. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like sandbox_exec for starting processes or sandbox_process_kill for killing them. No usage context is provided beyond the basic operation.

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

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

The description discloses that resuming restores filesystem and running processes, which is good behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if sandbox is not paused). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and while it adds value, it could be more comprehensive.

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 that efficiently communicate the action and key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 is a simple resume operation with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description provides sufficient context. It covers purpose, state restoration, and parameter usage. Missing error details or prerequisites, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but it implicitly confirms that sandboxId is required and timeoutMs is optional. Baseline 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 action ('Resume'), the resource ('a previously paused sandbox'), and provides specific details about what the resume operation entails: reconnecting and restoring state including filesystem and running processes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sandbox_pause and sandbox_kill.

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?

While the description implicitly indicates this should be used only for paused sandboxes, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., not for running or killed sandboxes) nor name alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a presigned URL (a temporary, secure URL) and that a subsequent POST request is needed. This is good transparency for a non-destructive tool, though it could mention whether the URL expires or the sandbox state is unaffected.

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 sentences, each earned: first states purpose, second gives immediate usage instruction. No extraneous content.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough to guide an agent. It covers the primary action and follow-up HTTP request, though it could clarify the response format or that the URL is only valid for a short time.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying the 'path' parameter defaults to '/home/user' (not explicitly in schema). The description does not add detail about the sandboxId, but the schema covers it sufficiently.

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 gets a presigned URL for uploading a file to a sandbox, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_download_url and sandbox_get_url by mentioning the upload intent, but could more explicitly contrast these.

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 includes 'Send a POST request with the file as multipart/form-data to the returned URL', which provides a brief usage hint. However, it does not specify when to use this vs. other upload methods (e.g., sandbox_file_write) or any prerequisites (e.g., sandboxId must reference an active sandbox).

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