reset_sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('throw away accumulated state'), the selective network reset behavior, and the asynchronous warm-up that may cause the next call to answer 'warming'. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences deliver the core action, usage triggers, parameter guidance, and an async caveat. It is front-loaded with the essential behavior and contains no filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: what it does, when to use it, how the parameter behaves, and expected asynchronous behavior. The mention of 'warming' covers an important operational expectation.

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 schema only defines network as string/null with a default. The description adds crucial meaning: pass 'off' or 'host' to reset that one, or omit to reset both. This fully explains the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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: throw away accumulated state and start fresh. It names the resource (sandbox) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_command or file operations by focusing on state reset.

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?

It gives concrete conditions for use: earlier files, installed packages, or environment changes getting in the way, or when the sandbox behaves oddly. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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