sandbox_summary

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read, but the description adds real value beyond that: it defines asleep (stopped, including failed starts), archived (deleted but retained, not quota-counted), and the free/quota semantics. It also clarifies the role-dependent output scope. Only the exact response shape is left implicit.

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 compact and front-loads the count categories before the role/quota explanation and the HTTP endpoint. The colon-list phrasing is telegraphic but every line earns its place; minor awkwardness in formatting keeps it from a 5.

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 does the work of explaining what the summary returns (the state categories and quota-relative counts) and how scope varies by role. That is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool, though it doesn't describe pagination or exact field names.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because there are none to add.

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 states a specific resource (sandboxes) and verb (count/summarize) broken down by state: allowed, running, asleep, deep sleep, archived. An agent can distinguish this counting tool from list_sandboxes, which enumerates rather than aggregates. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, keeping it at a 4.

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?

It gives scope context (a user sees their own against quota; an admin sees the whole server and by_owner), which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_sandboxes or get_sandbox, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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