get_sandbox_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it explains the two sandboxes are warmed per network policy, warmed independently, and that `warm: false` means the first call pays a ~26s download-and-compile cost. This goes beyond a generic status report and explains a key behavioral implication.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete usage triggers and then the important warm/cold cost detail. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description is complete: it states what is reported, when to call it, and what a `false` result implies. An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing parameter-specific to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description instead adds useful context about what the report means.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether the sandboxes are warm, and what they are running.' This clearly identifies it as a status/diagnostic tool and distinguishes it from the mutating and file-operation sibling tools like reset_sandbox and write_sandbox_file.

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 gives explicit triggers: use it after a `warming` response, after unexpected slowness, or before a long task. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, so the guidance is clear and actionable.

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