computer_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the temporary/permanent distinction and the ID generation behavior, but it does not explain other important aspects such as required permissions, what a 'sandbox computer' entails, or the return format beyond the slug. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value.

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?

For a simple create tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key ID behavior. However, it does not state the exact return value beyond the slug, and it lacks details about side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'readable random slug' is redundant with the schema's description of computer_id. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('temporary or permanent sandbox computer'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (exec, list, restart, etc.) by specifying the creation action. No ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to create a sandbox computer) and hints at the temporary/permanent choice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool names.

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