Sandbox status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context by disclosing the four categories of information returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It doesn't say anything about freshness, cost, or size of the response.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the usage cue. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 sketch return values, and it does so by listing the four status categories. For a one-parameter read-only summary tool, that's nearly complete; only the shape/format of the snapshot is left implicit.

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 single sandbox_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 enumerates the concrete contents (page counts, un-ingested raw sources, recent log entries, lint summary), making the resource — an aggregated sandbox status snapshot — unambiguous. It lacks a crisp verb and doesn't name sibling tools it differs from (wiki_get_info, wiki_log, wiki_lint), so it falls short of a 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?

"Use at the start of a session and whenever you lose track" gives clear triggering conditions for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions — e.g., telling the agent to use wiki_log or wiki_lint instead when only that slice is needed.

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