clone

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that filesystem (except /workspace) is copied and that it is faster than snapshot+restore, but it does not disclose if the original sandbox remains running, resource implications, or synchrony of the operation.

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 very concise, with two short sentences covering purpose, scope, and a performance note, plus an Args section. 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?

For a simple tool with two string parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the function, key behavior (filesystem copy except /workspace), and return type (confirmation with timing). It is adequately complete but could detail synchronization or state of the source sandbox.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that source is the sandbox to clone from and target is the new name, but adds no constraints or format details beyond the schema. This is minimal added value.

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 clones a running sandbox to a new name, specifies it copies the full filesystem except /workspace, and distinguishes it from snapshot+restore by noting it's faster. This provides a specific verb and resource with scope and differentiation.

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 it is faster than snapshot+restore because it skips image build, offering comparative guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like spawn or restore directly.

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