sandbox_get_url

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.