list_sandbox_mounts

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses conditional behavior that annotations cannot: the 'enabled' flag reflects whether HOST_MOUNT_ROOTS is set, and administrators additionally receive 'roots' (mountable folders) while non-admins do not. That role-dependent response variation is genuinely useful context, though permissions required to call the endpoint at all are not stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then field semantics, then the endpoint. Every line carries information; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: per-mount host path, sandbox target, readonly flag, plus the 'enabled' indicator and admin-only 'roots'. Only the auth/permission prerequisites for the endpoint are left unstated.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must carry it; the HTTP path 'GET /sandboxes/{name}/mounts' does implicitly confirm that 'name' is the sandbox name, which is real added meaning. It does not add format or validation detail beyond that, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 first line names the specific resource ('Host folders mounted into the sandbox') and the body enumerates the fields returned (host path, target, readonly), making it clear this is a read/list operation over mounts. It is distinguishable from add_sandbox_mount/remove_sandbox_mount by content, though it never says 'list' explicitly and relies on the tool name for the verb.

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 statement of when to call this versus add_sandbox_mount, remove_sandbox_mount, or list_sandbox_volumes. The only usage signal is the read-only nature implied by annotations and the path template; no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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