wake_sandbox

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: the 409 failure mode, the `reason` field, the returned `running` sandboxes, and the workaround of sleeping another sandbox first. It does not cover auth requirements, idempotency when the sandbox is already running, or timing/async wake 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?

Four short segments, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint and recovery path, with no filler. The leading 'Start sandbox' line is a near-restatement of the second sentence, a minor redundancy rather than a real cost.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies the error contract, the escape hatch for capacity limits, and the endpoint, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only the success return shape and auth prerequisites for a tool that mutates sandbox state.

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 and largely does: `name` is located in the path (/sandboxes/{name}/start) and `sleep` is given concrete semantics — put one of the running sandboxes to sleep to free a slot — including a literal example payload. It stops short of clarifying whether `name` accepts a display name or 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Wakes an asleep or deep-sleeping sandbox' — and pins it to an HTTP endpoint (POST /sandboxes/{name}/start), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It implicitly separates itself from sleep_sandbox/restart_sandbox by naming the sleep states it wakes from, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call this to wake a sandbox, and when the owner is at a limit you get a 409 with a `reason` and the list of running sandboxes. It also documents the recovery path (pass `sleep` to free a slot first). No explicit exclusion versus keep_sandbox_awake or restart_sandbox, which is the only gap.

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