read_sandbox_file

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: long files are capped as head + tail with truncation indicated via `truncated: true`, and the `network` flag selects a sandbox whose files are invisible to the other. This is substantive, though it does not describe error behavior for missing files.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, then follows with usage context, truncation behavior, and the sandbox-selection caveat. Every sentence contributes information and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description covers the core usage scenario, truncation result shape, and network isolation. The output schema likely covers return fields, so the only notable gap is path handling and missing-file behavior, which are minor for a read tool.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions and the description adds meaning for the `network` parameter, explaining that it selects which sandbox and that writes to one are not visible in the other. The `path` parameter is left entirely to inference; its format and sandbox-relative semantics are not explained.

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 text file from inside the sandbox." It also names the sibling it is not by referencing `write_sandbox_file`, so an agent can distinguish this read tool from its write counterpart.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to collect a file produced by sandboxed code or to inspect what `write_sandbox_file` left behind. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like `list_sandbox_dir` or `run_command`, but the context is clear enough to route usage.

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