repo_read_pr_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is read 'from inside the sandbox', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention what happens if the file does not exist, whether it returns an empty string or errors, or any other edge-case behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then specifying the exact file path. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or ambiguous content. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves some gaps—such as error behavior and when to use this over `read_file`. It is minimally complete but lacks some context that would fully prepare an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the `workspace_id` parameter at all. The description's reference to 'from inside the sandbox' only implicitly ties to the workspace, but it does not explain the parameter's role or expected format. The agent must infer that `workspace_id` identifies the sandbox, which is a gap.

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 states 'Read the repository's pull request template' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies it reads `.github/pull_request_template.md`. This clearly identifies the action and the target file. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling `read_file` tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `read_file` or other repo tools. It simply states what it does without any context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over reading the file directly.

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