sandbox_file_info

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.