[EXPERIMENTAL] Read a file from the per-workspace sandbox filesystem (build artifacts, test output, logs). Requires Cloudflare Containers; degrades to 503 otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path inside the sandbox (e.g., src/index.ts or /tmp/build.log) | |
| workspace_id | Yes | Workspace whose sandbox to read from |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It disclosures experimental status, dependency on Cloudflare Containers, and 503 error condition. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, where it reads from, and its constraints. No gaps identified.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing path examples (src/index.ts, /tmp/build.log) and clarifying workspace_id as the workspace whose sandbox to read.
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 it reads a file from the per-workspace sandbox filesystem, specifying the resource (sandbox) and action (read). It distinguishes from siblings like drive_read (main filesystem) and drive_sandbox_exec (execute commands).
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?
Describes when to use (read build artifacts, logs) and a key constraint (requires Cloudflare Containers, else 503). No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but sibling context provides differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
