Submit Sandbox Guardrail Evidence

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

Annotations provide basic behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and description adds context about simulator settlement/predicate checks. However, it does not explain idempotency, side effects, or what happens on resubmission beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences that immediately state purpose and usage boundaries. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 8 parameters and low schema coverage, the description omits critical details for correct invocation, such as how to structure evidence or what each parameter does. Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage it.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., payload, metadata, artifacts). No parameter-level guidance provided.

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?

Clearly states verb 'submit evidence' and resource 'sandbox guardrail intent'. Differentiates from sibling 'paybond_submit_spend_evidence' by specifying sandbox vs live Harbor spend.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (sandbox guardrail intent needs evidence) and when not to use (live Harbor spend evidence) with a named alternative tool.

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