sandbox_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive nature: 'drops all in-memory writes,' and clarifies that a fresh sandbox is created from the real project state. This explains the key side effect without requiring a permissions or rate limit note.

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: the first states the action and its effect, the second gives the use case. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and the key behavioral detail (in-memory writes dropped). It doesn't explain return values, but given the low complexity, this is not a critical gap. A slightly more explicit note about the result of the reset could push it to 5.

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 100% as the only parameter `confirm` has a clear description: 'Must be true to confirm destruction of in-memory writes.' The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing this destructive behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Discard the current sandbox (drops all in-memory writes) and create a fresh one.' It specifies the resource (sandbox) and the verb (discard/reset), and distinguishes it from siblings like sandbox_status by focusing on resetting rather than checking status.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Use this when you want to start over from the real project state.' This clearly indicates the use case, but it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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