sandbox_stop

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that termination works even after bridge failure and that evidence is retained on host, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Efficiently communicates key behaviors.

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 zero params, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (termination despite bridge failure, evidence retention). However, it doesn't mention whether evidence is automatically retained or requires a separate step, leaving minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rules. No additional parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb (Terminate) and resource (owned Sandbox), distinguishing it from siblings like sandbox_restart or sandbox_start. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other stop-like siblings (none exist besides restart), leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

Implies usage when bridge failure occurs or when termination is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. sandbox_restart or other lifecycle tools. The condition 'even after bridge failure' provides some context.

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