Read Sandbox File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is read-only, returns text, uses workspace-relative paths, and cannot escape the sandbox. It does not describe error behavior for missing files or binary files, but for a simple read tool the key safety and operational constraints are disclosed.

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 tight and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives a concrete use case, and the third states a critical safety limitation. No sentence is wasted.

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 the tool's low complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what, when, and the security boundary. Minor gaps like error behavior for nonexistent paths are left to the output schema and runtime errors.

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 reinforces that paths are workspace-relative and cannot escape, which matches the schema's existing path description. It adds little beyond the schema for experiment_id, but no parameter meaning is left unclear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file from inside the sandbox as text.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from write_sandbox_file and other sibling operations by framing it as an investigation tool for reading source, config, or logs.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS to investigate a failure -- read the source, the config, a log -- without guessing from stack traces.' It also explains an important exclusion, noting it cannot read the developer's machine. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the read vs. write distinction is clear enough.

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