data_read_json

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight and it does disclose two useful traits: reads occur inside the sandbox and files over 10 MB are not accepted. It remains silent on what happens on invalid JSON, whether the path is relative to a sandbox root, and whether errors are thrown or returned, which matters for a parsing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the size limit appended as a parenthetical constraint. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary, and the size cap plus sandbox mention cover the main runtime caveats. However, for a parsing tool the handling of malformed JSON and the exact path resolution are still unexplained, 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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'path' parameter, so the description should compensate and only partially does: 'from the sandbox' hints at a sandbox-relative path but gives no format, extension rules, or absolute-path behavior. The 10 MB bound is a useful constraint but is not tied to any parameter.

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 and resource ('Read and parse a JSON file from the sandbox') plus a size bound, which cleanly separates it from a generic binary read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling files_read_file or data_read_csv, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over files_read_file (raw read) or data_read_csv, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer that this tool both reads and parses, unlike the generic file reader.

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