list_sandbox_dir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists directory contents and returns name/kind/size, which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior for missing paths, permission issues, or the effect of the network parameter — though this is a simple read operation.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, when to use, and return structure. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description is adequate for a basic directory-listing tool and the output schema covers return values. The significant gap is the network parameter, which is neither described in the schema nor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'path' beyond the obvious default, and 'network' is completely unaddressed — an agent cannot tell from the description what network=true changes.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'List the contents of a directory inside the sandbox.' The return shape ('name', 'kind', 'size') and the contrast with read_sandbox_file make it easy to distinguish from sibling file operations.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: use it to see what is actually there before reading or running something, especially after install_sandbox_package or after a read_sandbox_file not_found. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of 5.

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