sandbox_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Show', indicating a read-only operation, and enumerates the output fields. However, it does not disclose error behaviors, permissions, or whether the sandbox might be uninitialized, though the simplicity of a status check mitigates this.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and lists the key attributes. Every element is informative and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description provides the main return fields, which is good for a simple status tool. It lacks details on data types or formats (e.g., age in seconds), but given the low complexity and zero parameters, this is largely sufficient.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters. The description compensates by clearly enumerating the output fields (project root, age, exec count, last script, network policy), which effectively tells the user what to expect from the call, exceeding the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current sandbox state') and explicitly lists the fields included. This distinguishes it from siblings like sandbox_reset and bash_exec, which focus on actions rather than status inspection.

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 use for checking status, and the sibling names are clearly distinct, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or which alternative to choose for other purposes.

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