sandbox_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'Dry-run' implies no side effects, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., does it throw an error, return a report?), nor whether it accesses the filesystem beyond reading. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Pre-validate edits'), followed by essential guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 relatively simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should explain return behavior or error handling. It does not describe what the dry-run returns (e.g., success/failure, syntax errors). It also doesn't mention side effects or workspace directory requirements, although the schema covers parameters. For a pre-validation step, agents may need to know how to interpret results, so this is a notable gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that new_content is 'full new text', reinforcing that it should be the entire file content, which is a useful nuance beyond the schema's 'or the edited section'. It also names the two key parameters directly, tying them to the validation purpose.

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 tool's purpose: 'Pre-validate edits' with a 'dry-run syntax check'. It identifies the specific resource (file edits) and action (validate), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'edit_transaction' by explicitly directing the user to use that afterward. The verb 'pre-validate' is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool before edit_transaction, as indicated by 'Then edit_transaction.' It implies this is a pre-flight check for edits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like edit_collision_guard, so it's slightly lacking in exclusion guidance.

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