get_sandbox_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Get information' signals a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what specific fields are returned, whether the call can be expensive, or what happens when sandbox_id is omitted. It's adequate but lacks behavioral detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose in the fewest possible words and does not repeat schema information.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and the schema covers it. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned information looks like or the meaning of 'resource usage', leaving some agent-facing ambiguity about what to expect from the call.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter fully (optional sandbox ID for a specific sandbox), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and names the resource ('sandbox status and resource usage'), which distinguishes it from the sibling file/execution tools. It stops short of a fully specific outcome like a list of returned fields, so it's a 4 rather than 5.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: call this when you need sandbox status or resource usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, when the optional sandbox_id should be supplied, or comparison to alternatives, so it earns only an implied-use score.

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