sandbox_process_list

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.