get_sandbox_ssh_key

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully notes the returned value is a private key intended for 'ssh -i', which flags its sensitivity and format. It omits whether a key must first exist via generate_sandbox_ssh_key, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 lines, front-loaded with what is returned before the route detail. No filler, though the opening noun phrase would read better with an explicit verb.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves open the dependency on key generation and says nothing about the returned key's format or how it is encoded.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, but the embedded path template '/sandboxes/{name}/ssh-key' implicitly reveals that name identifies the sandbox. That is modest added meaning over the bare string schema, not full compensation.

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?

Names a specific resource (the sandbox's generated SSH private key) and reinforces it with the HTTP route 'GET /sandboxes/{name}/ssh-key', so the retrieval action and target are unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling generate_sandbox_ssh_key, though the get/generate distinction is inferable.

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 parenthetical '(for ssh -i)' hints at the intended use case, but there is no statement of when to call this versus generate_sandbox_ssh_key or list_ssh_keys, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a key must be generated first) are given.

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