project_dir_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key traits: the link is single-use, expires after 5 minutes, returns .p9m contents with Docker keys, and yields HTTP 410 when expired or used. It also warns against copying keys and explains Docker context handling, though it omits auth requirements and rate limits.

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 critical facts are front-loaded: single-use link, 5-minute lifetime, contents, and usage command. The text is somewhat dense and the opening sentence is a fragment, but nearly every sentence provides actionable information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the returned link, its contents, the unpacking command, expiry behavior, and Docker context follow-up. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the parameter meaning and permission requirements remain slightly underspecified.

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%, so the description must explain the single `name` parameter. It does so indirectly via 'HTTP POST /sandboxes/{name}/project-link' and references to the sandbox's Docker keys, implying `name` is the sandbox identifier, but it never explicitly defines the parameter or its format.

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 identifies the resource: a single-use link to the project's .p9m folder containing Docker keys, and the HTTP endpoint. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, but the opening is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, so the action ('returns a link') must be inferred.

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 gives detailed post-call instructions (run the curl command yourself, never copy a key, recreate the Docker context after new keys or TLS errors, ask for a new link on 410). However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rotate_docker_keys or get_sandbox_ssh_key, leaving selection guidance implicit.

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