Retrieve the contents of a UTF-8 text file inside a Tenki sandbox by providing the session ID and absolute path.
Read a UTF-8 text file from a sandbox (paths under /home/tenki).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path inside the sandbox, under /home/tenki. | |
| session_id | Yes | Sandbox session id (UUID), from tenki_create_sandbox or tenki_list_sandboxes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful constraints: only UTF-8 text files and only paths under /home/tenki, which imply that binary files or other paths may fail.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key verb, object, and path constraint are immediately clear.
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 read operation, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs: session-derived sandbox context, path restriction, and file type. No output schema exists, but 'read a file' adequately implies returning content.
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 100%, so both params are already documented. The description restates the sandbox path restriction but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 action (read), a resource (UTF-8 text file), and an explicit scope (sandbox under /home/tenki). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tenki_list_files and tenki_stat_path.
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?
Provides clear context: this reads files only within the sandbox path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the action and path constraint make the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.