List Directory in Sandbox

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. However, it adds no extra behavioral details such as sorting order, inclusion of hidden files, or whether the listing is recursive. With high annotation coverage, the description fails to provide value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of annotations and schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about listing behavior (e.g., hidden files, sorting, error handling) that would help an agent handle edge cases. A more complete description would mention these aspects.

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 fully describes both parameters ('Sandbox name' and 'Directory path to list') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for a parameter description.

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 (List), the resource (directory contents), and the scope (inside the sandbox). This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like sandbox_fs_read (reads file content) or sandbox_fs_stat (file metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sandbox_fs_stat for single file info). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., sandbox must exist) or what happens if the path does not exist (e.g., error vs empty list). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters.

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