list_sandbox_volumes

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the volumes' files live under each volume's path and are reachable via the files tools, plus the backing HTTP endpoint. It does not disclose return shape or whether volumes are per-app or sandbox-wide beyond the brief phrase.

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?

The definition is short and front-loads the resource, but it is a run-on sentence stitched with a semicolon and an embedded HTTP endpoint, making it less clean to parse than it could be.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys the basic subject matter but omits any notion of what a returned volume entry contains or ordering/pagination behavior. Adequate but with clear 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' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The embedded path '/sandboxes/{name}/volumes' does clarify that 'name' is the sandbox identifier, which compensates partially, but no format or constraint details are given.

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 specific resource (volumes of apps in the sandbox's own Docker), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sandbox_images and list_sandbox_files. The verb is only implied via the tool name, and the phrasing 'The volumes of the apps in the sandbox's own Docker' is grammatically awkward, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The clause 'through the files tools' weakly signals that file access is handled elsewhere, but it does not frame this as an alternative choice, so the agent gets no real routing instruction.

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