List sandboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds two useful domain facts, that returned IDs feed the sandbox_* tools and that sandboxes are a separate resource class from app services, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or filtering.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up usage note second. Nothing repeats the tool title.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is listed, in what scope, and how the results are consumed. The only real gap is the undisclosed identifier format for 'project'.

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 single required 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. 'In an explicit project' conveys that the parameter scopes the list, but the accepted format (project ID, slug, or name) and what 'explicit' rules out are left unstated.

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 and resource ('List Lizard Sandboxes') plus a scope qualifier ('in an explicit project'). It is distinguishable from sandbox_show/sandbox_create by the 'List' verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 downstream guidance ('Use the returned IDs with sandbox tools') and a taxonomy boundary ('separate from app services'), which implies this is the discovery step before sandbox_exec/read_file/write_file. However it never states when to call this instead of sandbox_show, nor any prerequisites for resolving the project.

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