drive_sandbox_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds valuable context by noting the [EXPERIMENTAL] status and the requirement for Cloudflare Containers with a degraded 503 error otherwise. This helps agents anticipate failure modes, though it does not describe return format or other errors.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the action, typical content, experimental status, and a key requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a critical infrastructure dependency. It could be more complete by explicitly stating it is read-only or linking to sibling tools, but it is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds file-system context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (workspace_id and path with examples).

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 identifies the tool as reading a file from the per-workspace sandbox filesystem and lists typical content types (build artifacts, test output, logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_sandbox_clone and drive_sandbox_exec by focusing on reading rather than cloning or executing.

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 implies usage for reading sandbox files but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools (e.g., drive_sandbox_clone, drive_sandbox_exec) or provide when-not guidance. The experimental tag hints at caution but lacks direct alternatives.

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