List Sandboxes

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns data from the SandboxInfo Tooling API object, includes specific fields (status, license type, dates), and notes a production-org requirement. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is concise: three sentences, each serving a purpose—what it lists, technical source, and when to use it. No redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers functionality, output content, use case, and an important precondition (production org). Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately mentions the return fields, and the schema is trivially covered. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no additional parameter info is needed.

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 clearly states the action ('Lists') and the specific resource ('all sandbox orgs associated with the production org'), and it enumerates the included fields (status, license type, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_sandbox and sf_refresh_sandbox by focusing on read-only listing.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to monitor sandbox creation and refresh status,' indicating a clear use case. It also provides a constraint ('Must be called from the production org') and implicitly contrasts with create/refresh siblings, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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