Show sandbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail not in the annotations: the platform checks the current user's access to the ID, signaling possible permission-denied outcomes. It doesn't say what happens on denial, keeping it from a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read and what is returned, with the access-check caveat following. 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?

With full annotations and full schema coverage, the main remaining gap is the absence of an output schema, which the description partially offsets by naming the fields returned (status, project, template, expiry). Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents sandboxId format, pattern, and sourcing (from sandbox_create or sandbox_list). The description adds no syntax or format information beyond that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb/resource pairing ('Read a sandbox's status, project, template, and expiry') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sandbox_list, leaving that contrast to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: this fetches details for one sandbox ID, complementing sandbox_list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer that it needs a known ID rather than a listing.

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