sandbox_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: isolation, bash execution, statelessness between calls (but filesystem persistence), and a 120-second default timeout. It does not mention the temporary/computer_id lifecycle behavior or how output is returned, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 concise, with two focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds valuable information: purpose, execution environment, state persistence, usage tips, stdin, and timeout. 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?

While the description covers execution context well, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, exit codes, or output capture. Additionally, the temporary and computer_id parameters are not explained in the description, leaving these lifecycle aspects under-specified. This is a clear gap for a command-execution tool.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the default timeout (120 seconds), how to use 'stdin' for escaping issues, and how working_directory can be used to control execution context. This lifts it to a 4.

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 opens with 'Execute a shell command in an isolated Debian Linux sandbox,' which clearly states a specific action and resource. It further clarifies that commands run in bash, distinguishing it from the sibling computer-management tools that do not execute commands.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions, such as using 'working_directory' or chaining commands with '&&' to control execution context, and using 'stdin' to safely pass data. It also notes the default timeout and how to override it. However, it does not mention alternatives among sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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