kill_sandbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses the return value (error message on failure, empty string on success) but does not explicitly warn that killing is irreversible or that it terminates all running processes. The verb 'kill' implies destructive action, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and necessary without redundant detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, small scope), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and what to expect in the return. It could improve by adding a note about when to use it (e.g., 'after finishing work in the sandbox'), but it is largely complete for an agent to operate correctly.

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 has zero description coverage for the sandbox_id parameter. The description compensates by stating 'sandbox_id: The ID of the sandbox to kill', which clearly explains the parameter's purpose. It does not specify format or source, but the meaning is clear and sufficient for a simple 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Kill an E2B sandbox') and the targeting method ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sandbox, run_command, and run_code, which are about creation and execution rather than termination.

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 use case—terminating a sandbox when it is no longer needed—but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives/exclusions. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic purpose, but lacks explicit guidance on lifecycle or when not to use it.

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