sandbox_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description usefully adds the security caveat that enabling networking exposes the guest to the host/LAN, but leaves unexplained what "owned" means, what happens on resource exhaustion, and what startup_timeout governs.

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, with the action front-loaded and the caveat second. However, the terse style tips into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and "owned" is never clarified.

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 state-creating tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a broad sibling set, the definition omits what is produced, resource defaults/limits, and startup behavior. Annotations cover the safety profile but not the operational details an agent needs.

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% across three parameters, so the burden falls on the description, which only alludes to networking (via the opt-in warning). memory_mb and startup_timeout receive no explanation at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource ("Create owned Sandbox"), which separates it cleanly from siblings like sandbox_stop, sandbox_exec, and sandbox_status. The word "owned" is unexplained and the name/description mismatch (start vs. create) is mildly confusing, but the core action is 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as sandbox_launch, sandbox_restart, or sandbox_windows. The description gives no prerequisites or conditions that would tell an agent which sibling to pick.

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