e2b_get_sandbox_logs

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 mentions 'structured logs' and 'pagination/filtering', which hints at return format and capabilities, but it does not explain error behavior, authentication requirements, or that this is a read-only operation. The description is too sparse to give the agent a clear picture of side effects or exceptions.

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 with no waste. However, conciseness is achieved at the expense of essential details. It's not bloated, but it is under-specified; the structure is acceptable but would benefit from clarity on pagination mechanics. A neutral 3 reflects this trade-off.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what 'structured logs' look like, how pagination works (cursor/direction semantics), the meaning of 'level' or 'search', or any constraints. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, which is itself incomplete, to call the tool correctly. This is a major gap.

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 50% (level, cursor, search have descriptions; limit, direction, sandboxId do not). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema—it merely says 'pagination/filtering' without explaining that 'cursor' is a timestamp, how 'direction' interacts with pagination, or what 'limit' defaults to. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 (Get) and the resource (structured logs for a sandbox), and correctly identifies the v2 endpoint. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, it's unique among them—no other tool retrieves logs—making purpose unambiguous. A 4 is warranted because it doesn't name an alternative but the intent is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a sandbox ID). The description only states what it does, not the circumstances under which it should be invoked. With 22 sibling tools, this lack of routing information leaves the agent to infer usage.

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