Run PowerShell commands in a disposable Windows guest, returning bounded stdout/stderr, exit code, timeout status, and terminating child processes on completion.
Run guest PowerShell; bounded stdout/stderr, exit code and timeout status. Children die on completion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| timeout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false): stdout/stderr are bounded, exit code and timeout status are returned, and child processes are killed on completion. It still doesn't say what permissions are required or how 'bounded' is enforced, but the process lifecycle disclosure is valuable.
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 dense, telegraphic sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Slightly clipped to the point that clarity suffers, but nothing needs to be cut.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly steps in to say what comes back (stdout/stderr bounds, exit code, timeout status). However, for a destructive execution tool it omits prerequisites (sandbox state), input format, and what happens to the guest environment after the command runs.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does nothing to compensate: it never says whether 'command' is a full PowerShell script, a single command, or a base64 payload, nor what 'timeout' does when exceeded (the 'timeout status' phrase hints at it but never states it kills the run). Two undocumented params leave an agent guessing at call syntax.
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?
States a concrete verb+resource: run PowerShell in the guest. The execution semantics distinguish it from capture/UI siblings like sandbox_screenshot or sandbox_click, though it never explicitly names a sibling or the boundary with sandbox_launch/sandbox_upload.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does the sandbox need to be started first?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for arbitrary command execution rather than one of the other 17 sandbox_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.