Boxtalk Data MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns paginated data with enforced pagination, which implies read-only behavior and some constraints, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'enforced pagination' entails (e.g., server-side enforcement). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is front-loaded and concise, consisting of two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and key behavioral trait (pagination enforcement).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., data format, pagination metadata), error cases, and behavioral nuances like authentication needs or performance limits. This makes it inadequate for a tool that interacts with a database and handles pagination.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'paginated data' and 'pagination enforced,' which aligns with the 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb ('Get paginated data') and resource ('from a SQL Server table'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_count' or 'query_data', which likely serve different purposes (e.g., counting rows vs. flexible querying).

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 'get_table_count' (for counts) or 'query_data' (for more complex queries). It mentions pagination but doesn't clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving usage context implied at best.

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