Get Agent Sandbox Status

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the description's job is to add return semantics — and it does, enumerating fork ID, name, changed pages, and per-field diffs against live, plus the inactive case ('if so'). It stops short of stating what an inactive result looks like (null vs empty) or any error/pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary question (is it active) before the detail payload. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so reasonably well for a zero-parameter status tool. Missing only edge-case behavior: exact shape of the inactive response and whether diff detail is truncated for large change sets.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No key/ID input is accepted, meaning it operates on implicit session context, which the description does not clarify but also does not need to given the empty 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 names a specific verb (show) and resource (agent sandbox) and states the scope of what is reported: activity status, fork ID, name, and changed pages. It is distinguishable from start_agent_sandbox/end_agent_sandbox, though its 'pages changed so far' overlap with get_agent_session_changes could blur the line with that sibling. Clear but not explicitly differentiated from every neighbor.

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 read-only status framing implies usage (check sandbox state before acting on it), but it never states when to call this versus get_agent_session_changes, list_forks, or get_fork_diff. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, no alternatives named.

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