install_sandbox_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that installation persists for the sandbox lifespan and survives until reset_sandbox, and that the returned commands are exactly what run_command can call. It does not mention network behavior or failure modes, but the key side effect is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and outcome come first, followed by when to use it, package format, and persistence. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

The output schema exists and the description covers the return semantics and persistence, so the agent knows what to expect. The main gap is the undocumented `network` parameter, which could affect whether an install can reach a registry.

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 `package` parameter is meaningfully documented with registry-name examples and a version format. However, the `network` boolean is left unexplained in both the schema and the description, so with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb ('Install'), a resource ('Wasmer registry package into the sandbox'), and an outcome ('report the commands it adds'). It also clarifies the tool fills a missing capability, which distinguishes it from run_python and run_command.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition: use it when the sandbox does not already have the tool, since the guest starts with only Python. It also connects the returned commands to run_command, but it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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