list_sandbox_images

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the note that results include secret-scan data, which is genuinely useful output context. It does not cover pagination, auth scope, or whether registry images differ from sandbox-local images.

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?

It is short with no padding, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured sentence, and the raw 'HTTP GET /sandboxes/{name}/registry' line reads like schema leakage rather than agent-facing prose.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and one notable return element (secret-scan results). It still omits what the returned image list looks like and any scoping detail, leaving modest gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'name' param is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. The trailing HTTP path '/sandboxes/{name}/registry' weakly signals that 'name' is the sandbox identifier, but the meaning is only implied, not stated.

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 the resource ('the sandbox's images in the p7y registry') and a distinguishing output trait ('secret-scan results'), which lets an agent infer it lists images. However it is a verbless fragment that never says 'list' or 'retrieve', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_sandbox or list_templates beyond the registry wording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_sandbox_image_version or list_templates. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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