Read Sandbox File

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: paths are workspace-relative, cannot escape the sandbox, and the tool returns text content. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand safety boundaries, though it does not cover error behavior or binary file handling.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then immediately provides the primary use case and critical constraints. Every sentence 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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the key security boundary. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter by specifying that paths are workspace-relative and cannot escape the sandbox, which is not fully apparent from the schema alone. The 'experiment_id' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema, but the added path context is valuable.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file from inside the sandbox as text.' It also distinguishes from siblings by stating that paths cannot escape the sandbox and that the tool cannot read the developer's machine, making its scope 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 explicit guidance: 'USE THIS to investigate a failure' and suggests reading source, config, or logs rather than guessing from stack traces. It also notes a limitation (cannot read the developer's machine), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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