get_sandbox_compose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds that secrets are masked in the returned compose YAML, which is real behavioral context about the response content. It does not say whether masking is permanent, what mask format is used, or what happens if no stack was deployed.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the resource being returned, with the endpoint appended as supporting context. The 'Purgatorium' reference is unexplained noise for an agent that does not know that term, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys the key fact (compose YAML with secrets masked), which is enough to call it. It still omits error behavior (missing sandbox, no stack deployed) and the exact shape/masking convention of the returned YAML, which the absent output schema would otherwise need to cover.

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 0% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema. The description only indirectly clarifies it via the HTTP path '/sandboxes/{name}/compose', implying it is the sandbox name, but it never states the expected format or whether it is the sandbox name versus an ID.

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 identifies the resource (the sandbox's starter compose YAML) and the HTTP path confirms it is a retrieval of the compose file for a sandbox. However, the phrasing 'The starter stack Purgatorium deployed into the sandbox' is jargon-heavy and never uses a clean verb like 'get' or 'returns', and it gives no explicit differentiation from siblings such as get_sandbox or list_sandbox_files.

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 get_sandbox, sandbox_summary, or list_sandbox_files, all of which an agent might reach for when inspecting a sandbox. The description states only what it is, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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