create_devbox

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

Annotations are absent, and the description provides no behavioral details beyond the action itself. There is no disclosure of side effects, required setup (e.g., blueprint_id or blueprint_name), or potential delays, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and to the point, effectively stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?

Despite the short description, the rich input schema (100% parameter coverage) and presence of an output schema compensate for the lack of detail. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the core action, though it could mention the resulting devbox object or setup requirements.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden of explaining parameters and their constraints.

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 'Create a new Runloop Devbox' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_devbox, shutdown_devbox, and suspend_devbox. It is unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'create'.

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