api_algod_get_application_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get application box by name', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value contains (since no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely interacts with Algorand blockchain data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'boxName' is used to retrieve a specific box. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Get application box by name' clearly states the action (get) and resource (application box), but it's vague about what an 'application box' is in the Algorand context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_algod_get_application_boxes' or 'api_indexer_lookup_application_box'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.

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. With many sibling tools related to applications and boxes (e.g., 'api_algod_get_application_boxes', 'api_indexer_lookup_application_box'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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