list_scanboxes

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

The description mentions 'Read-only' and the HTTP method (GET), which are behavioral traits. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the response contains (e.g., list of scanbox objects), pagination, or error handling. A bit more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a clarifying HTTP method and read-only status. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe the return format, potential pagination, or what fields are included in scanbox objects. For a list operation, agents would benefit from knowing the response structure.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the operation's nature (list, read-only) beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 3 is exceeded because the description provides meaningful context for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('List all scanboxes on the account') and the resource ('scanboxes'), with a distinct verb-noun pair. The sibling tools include other list operations (e.g., list_recipients), so it's easy to differentiate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the simple nature of the tool and lack of parameters make usage context self-evident. A brief note on when to prefer list_scanboxes over other list tools would improve the score.

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