read_sandbox_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the file must be UTF-8 and no larger than 1 MB, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not describe error behavior or path-resolution rules, keeping it below the top mark.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler prose. The trailing 'HTTP GET /sandboxes/{name}/files/text' is implementation detail that adds little for an agent choosing the tool, slightly diluting an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, for a file-read tool the description omits what happens on missing files, how binary or oversized files are handled, and how the path resolves within the sandbox, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 50%: 'path' has an example but 'name' has none. The phrase 'the sandbox's files' plus the endpoint /sandboxes/{name}/files/text does clarify that 'name' is the sandbox name, partially compensating. It adds only marginal meaning over the schema for the path format.

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 verb (Read) and resource (a text file of the sandbox's files), which clearly separates it from the sibling write_sandbox_file and delete_sandbox_file. The added constraints (UTF-8, up to 1 MB) sharpen what kind of file it operates on. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative read path (list_sandbox_files), so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 'text file ... up to 1 MB' constraint implies when this tool is appropriate (small UTF-8 files) and implicitly when it is not (binary or oversized files), but no alternative tool is named and no preconditions are stated. Usage is left to inference rather than spelled out.

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