create_sandbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'secure' and 'returns a sandbox_id'. It does not explain what 'secure' entails (e.g., isolation, network restrictions), whether creation is side-effecting, resource costs, or behavior on timeout/cleanup. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 two sentences, tightly written, and front-loaded with the core action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is complex (5 optional parameters, security presets, templates, network allowlists) and has no output schema, but the description only mentions returning a sandbox_id. It does not explain default behavior, how security presets affect the environment, or how to choose between templates. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation.

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 5 parameters, including details about defaults, enums, and constraints. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'secure sandbox environment', and distinguishes this from siblings like kill_sandbox and list_sandboxes by focusing on creation. It also mentions the key output (sandbox_id) for use with other tools, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies the sandbox is a prerequisite for other sandbox tools ('to use with other tools'), giving some context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., running commands directly without a sandbox) or provide exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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