MCP Server Box

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes within their categories, but there is significant overlap in the AI extraction tools (e.g., box_ai_extract_freeform_tool vs. box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool) and collaboration tools (multiple variations for files/folders with users/groups). The descriptions help differentiate them, but the sheer number of similar tools could cause confusion for an agent trying to select the right one.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix (box_) and resource-action structure (e.g., box_file_download_tool, box_folder_create_tool). Minor deviations exist, such as box_who_am_i (no '_tool' suffix) and mcp_server_info (different prefix), but overall the convention is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 117 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, even for a comprehensive Box API integration. This many tools will overwhelm agents and make navigation difficult. The scope is broad, but the tool set feels bloated with many fine-grained variations (e.g., separate collaboration tools for files/folders by user ID, login, or group ID) that could be consolidated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides extensive coverage of the Box domain, including files, folders, collaborations, metadata, AI features, tasks, shared links, users, groups, and document generation. It supports full CRUD operations and lifecycle management across all major resources, with no apparent gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 117 of 117 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a search operation but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it's read-only, how results are returned (format, pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of 'ctx (Context)' parameter is technical implementation detail not helpful for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the Args/Returns formatting is more technical documentation than agent guidance. The 'ctx (Context)' parameter explanation is unnecessary for an AI agent's understanding. The description could be more front-loaded with practical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return dictionary contains, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when no matches are found. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters in the Args section but adds minimal semantic value: 'name (str): The name filter to search for AI agents' and 'limit (Optional[int]): Maximum number of items to return. Defaults to 1000.' This doesn't explain search behavior (exact match, partial, case-sensitivity), format expectations, or practical constraints beyond what's obvious from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for AI agents in Box by name.' This specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('AI agents in Box'), and filtering method ('by name'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' or 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' (which might list all agents) or 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' (which retrieves specific agents by ID). There's no context about when name-based search is preferred over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets the description' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing descriptions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. The return value documentation is minimal ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, the structure includes an unexplained 'ctx' parameter in the Args section that doesn't appear in the schema, creating inconsistency. The return documentation is minimal but adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral implications (permissions, side effects), provide parameter context beyond basic types, or guide usage relative to sibling tools. The mention of 'ctx' without schema correspondence adds confusion rather than completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter names and types (folder_id as str, description as str) but lacks semantic context like format expectations (e.g., folder_id format, description length limits), what constitutes valid input, or examples. The 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not explained in the schema, creating confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets the description') and target resource ('of a folder in Box'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_set_description_tool' which performs a similar operation on files rather than folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like required permissions), when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related operations (like viewing folder descriptions with 'box_folder_info_tool').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('create or update') but doesn't describe what happens when a shared link already exists (does it overwrite?), what permissions are required, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is too minimal for a mutation 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, which is organized. However, the Args section is verbose (repeating 'optional' and 'defaults to None' for each parameter) without adding meaningful context. The single-sentence purpose statement is clear but could be more front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the create-or-update behavior, missing parameters, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return dict contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 5 parameters (file_id, access, unshared_at, password, permissions) but the schema has 8 parameters (missing can_download, can_preview, can_edit, vanity_name). The description provides no semantic details about parameter formats, constraints, or default behaviors beyond 'optional' and 'defaults to None'. This leaves 3 parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('shared link for a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool or box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool, which perform similar operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like authentication or file permissions), when to choose 'create' vs 'update', or how this differs from other shared link tools for folders or web links. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'creates or updates' a shared link, implying mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing links, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or error conditions. The return value is vaguely described as 'The response from the Box API,' which doesn't help the agent understand success/failure outcomes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but the Args/Returns sections are verbose yet incomplete. The structure includes redundant information (e.g., 'Defaults to None' for each optional param) without adding value, and the return statement is overly generic. It could be more concise by eliminating boilerplate and focusing on essential guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover half the parameters, omits behavioral context like idempotency or error handling, and provides vague return info. For a tool that modifies shared links—a sensitive operation—this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 5 parameters (folder_id, access, unshared_at, password, permissions) with minimal context (e.g., 'optional', defaults). However, the input schema has 8 parameters, missing can_download, can_preview, can_edit, and vanity_name entirely. The description fails to explain parameter meanings (e.g., what 'access' values are valid, what 'permissions' dict contains), leaving most parameters undocumented or poorly defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('shared link for a folder'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other shared link tools (e.g., box_shared_link_file_create_or_update_tool) by specifying it's for folders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from box_shared_link_folder_get_tool or box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool in terms of purpose, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple sibling tools for shared links (create/update, get, remove for files, folders, and web links), there's no indication of prerequisites, when to choose this over box_shared_link_folder_get_tool for existing links, or how it interacts with other folder tools like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no shared link exists (error vs. null response), rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of returning 'shared link details' is vague about format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with a clear first sentence stating the purpose. However, the Args/Returns sections are redundant with the schema (though schema has 0% coverage) and add technical implementation details (Context object, dict return) that don't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. The structure is front-loaded but includes unnecessary boilerplate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'shared link details' include, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of shared link management and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'folder_id' generically without explaining what constitutes a valid folder ID format, where to find it, or examples. It doesn't address the 'ctx' parameter at all. With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond naming the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'shared link for a folder', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool and box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool by focusing on retrieval rather than creation/modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with box_shared_link_folder_find_by_shared_link_url_tool, which appears to be a different lookup method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the folder must already have a shared link), compare with box_shared_link_folder_find_by_shared_link_url_tool, or indicate scenarios where this is appropriate versus creating a new shared link. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an assignment operation but doesn't describe what happens to existing assignments, whether this requires specific permissions, what errors might occur, or what the Box API response contains. The mention of 'The response from the Box API' is vague and unhelpful for understanding behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise at four lines, but the structure is inefficient. It front-loads the purpose but then includes a confusing 'Args:' section that mixes implementation details (ctx parameter) with user-facing parameters. The 'Returns:' line adds little value without describing the response structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mutation's effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or return values. The sibling tools show this is part of a complex task management system, but the description provides no integration context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters (task_id and user_id) but provides no semantic context beyond their names. It doesn't explain what constitutes valid IDs, where to find them, or their format. The 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not explained, adding confusion rather than clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Assign') and resource ('Box task') with the specific mechanism ('via user ID'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'box_task_assign_by_email_tool' by specifying the ID-based method. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other task-related tools like 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' or 'box_task_assignment_remove_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'box_task_assign_by_email_tool' or other task assignment methods, nor does it specify prerequisites like task existence or user permissions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'The response from the Box API with the task details,' which hints at a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and no wasted sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in args is unnecessary clutter since it's not a user-facing parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, response structure, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem like Box with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes 'Args: task_id (str): The ID of the task to retrieve details for,' which adds meaning by explaining the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID), examples, or validation rules, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get details of a Box task' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (Box task). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_assignment_details_tool' or 'box_task_assignments_list_tool', leaving ambiguity about what specific 'details' are retrieved versus other task-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple task-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., box_task_assignments_list_tool, box_task_update_tool), the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to help the agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions AI usage and optional agent selection, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though some sentences (like the Args list) are functional rather than explanatory.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (AI interaction with files), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address key contextual aspects such as response structure, error cases, or integration with sibling AI tools, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The ID of the file to ask about'), but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema titles imply. For example, it does not explain file ID format constraints or prompt best practices, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about a file using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('file'), and method ('using AI'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool' or 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool', which limits differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool' (for multiple files) or 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool' (for hubs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting an authorization process and returning a message, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this initiates an OAuth flow requiring user interaction, potential side effects (e.g., setting tokens), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately disclose how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three lines, but it's not optimally structured: it repeats the purpose ('Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process') and includes a vague return statement. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate redundancy, though it avoids excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authorization is a critical, state-changing operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the authorization mechanism, what the return message signifies, or how this integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its role in the broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it could note the lack of inputs more explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process', which provides a clear verb ('authorize') and resource ('Box application'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings, as no other tools in the list appear to handle authorization, but the description is somewhat vague about what authorization entails (e.g., OAuth flow, user consent).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to run this before other Box tools), exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Removes a tag') and return type ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive mutation (implied by 'Removes'), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the tag doesn't exist. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the 'ctx' parameter in Args is unexplained and potentially confusing, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation tool (remove tag), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks error handling, permissions, side effects, and detailed return format. For a tool that modifies data, this is inadequate to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description lists parameters ('folder_id', 'tag') and their types in the Args section, but doesn't explain what these mean (e.g., format of folder_id, what constitutes a valid tag) or provide examples. It adds basic structure but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Removes') and resource ('a tag from a folder in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_tag_add_tool' or 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' beyond the obvious remove vs add/list distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the tag must exist on the folder), error conditions, or when to choose this over other folder or tag-related tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states what the tool does ('get') and the return type ('dict'), but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the metadata doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and subsequent sections are organized efficiently. There's no redundant information, though the 'ctx' parameter in Args is unnecessary for the agent's understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return format specifics beyond 'dict', and how this tool relates to other metadata operations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an Args section that lists parameters (file_id, template_key) with basic types, but doesn't explain what these IDs represent, where to find them, format requirements, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the metadata template instance associated with a specific file.' It uses specific verbs ('get') and resources ('metadata template instance', 'file'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool or box_metadata_update_instance_on_file_tool, which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to other metadata tools in the sibling list, or any contextual constraints. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool finds a folder by shared link URL, implying a read-only lookup operation, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'find' entails (e.g., returns folder details or just existence). The mention of an optional password hints at access control, but lacks details on how it's used or when required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., merging into a single paragraph). There's minimal waste, though the ctx parameter explanation is generic and adds little value for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'find' returns, error handling), authentication, and how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with two parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (shared_link_url, password) and notes password is optional with a default, adding some semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., URL structure, password constraints) or provide examples, leaving significant gaps given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a folder by its shared link URL.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('folder'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' or other shared-link find tools, which would require mentioning it's specifically for folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid shared link URL), exclusions (e.g., not for files or web links), or refer to sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' for files. The only implied usage is from the tool name and description, but no explicit guidelines are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the action is reversible, what happens to existing access, or potential side effects. It mentions returning 'The response from the Box API' but gives no indication of what that response contains or possible error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, documenting the parameter, and describing the return. However, the Args/Returns formatting is somewhat redundant with what could be in structured schema fields, and the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds no value for the AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'removing a shared link' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the response structure looks like, or error handling. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'folder_id' as 'The ID of the folder to remove the shared link from' - this adds minimal semantic context beyond what's obvious from the parameter name. No information about format, validation, or where to obtain this ID is provided, leaving significant gaps for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a shared link') and target resource ('from a folder'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_shared_link_file_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool', which perform similar operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing shared link), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and unhelpful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but include unnecessary details (e.g., 'ctx' parameter not in the schema, vague return description). Overall, it's efficient with minor waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), parameter semantics, and output specifics. The mention of a 'dict' return is insufficient for an agent to understand the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only names the parameter ('assignment_id') without explaining its format, source, or constraints (e.g., where to obtain it, if it's a UUID). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('Box task assignment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_task_assignments_list_tool' (which lists assignments) and 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' (which modifies assignments). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_task_details_tool', which might retrieve task-level details rather than assignment-level details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an assignment ID from another tool like 'box_task_assignments_list_tool'), nor does it clarify distinctions from similar tools (e.g., 'box_task_details_tool' for task-level details). Usage is implied only by the parameter name 'assignment_id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a removal operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, is reversible, or has side effects (e.g., notifications, audit trails). The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and doesn't describe success/error behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. However, the Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose for such simple content, and the 'ctx' parameter is irrelevant to the agent and could be omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: behavioral traits (permissions, reversibility), parameter details (ID format), output expectations, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a mutation tool with these gaps, it should provide more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'assignment_id' as 'The ID of the task assignment to remove', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Assignment Id'. No details on ID format, sourcing, or validation are provided, leaving significant gaps for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('Box task assignment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_remove_tool' or 'box_task_assignment_update_tool', which would require more context about what distinguishes removing an assignment from removing a task or updating an assignment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'box_task_remove_tool' and 'box_task_assignment_update_tool', it's unclear when removal of an assignment is appropriate compared to removing the entire task or updating the assignment. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a removal operation, implying mutation/destruction, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated assignments, or what happens on failure. The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and doesn't describe success/error patterns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though 'ctx' parameter documentation adds no value for AI agents. No redundant sentences, but the structure could be more streamlined by omitting the context parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (permanent deletion? archive?), doesn't mention side effects on assignments, and provides minimal parameter guidance. The return value description is too vague to be useful for error handling or result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'task_id' and its type, but adds no semantic context beyond what's in the schema title ('Task Id'). No information about format, validation, where to find task IDs, or relationship to other task operations. With 0% coverage and minimal added value, this falls below the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a Box task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_assignment_remove_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool', which also modify task-related entities, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 tasks (e.g., box_task_update_tool, box_task_assignment_remove_tool), there's no indication of whether this removes the entire task versus just assignments, or what prerequisites might exist. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it returns a dictionary containing a list, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what fields are included in the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with three sentences, but the structure could be improved. The first sentence states the purpose, but the Args/Returns formatting is more technical documentation than helpful natural language for an AI agent. The information is front-loaded but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned dictionary contains, how to interpret results, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. For a list operation with sibling alternatives, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'limit' parameter and its default value of 1000, which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters (1 of 2 total) without semantic context in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'available AI agents in Box', which makes the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool' and 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' available, there's no indication whether this tool lists all agents, filtered agents, or serves a different purpose than the search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and return value. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more efficient by integrating the Args/Returns into a single paragraph, but overall it's well-structured without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context: what information is returned, error handling, authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'ai_agent_id' with its type and purpose. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing basic parameter documentation. It doesn't add rich semantics like format examples, constraints, or where to find agent IDs, but it meets the baseline for having parameter information when schema coverage is low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about a specific AI agent by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('AI agent'), but doesn't distinguish it from its sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool' beyond the 'by ID' qualifier. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' and 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', there's no indication of when to retrieve a specific agent by ID versus listing or searching. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions AI processing and returns a dict with answers per file, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or how the AI processes multiple files (e.g., sequentially or in parallel).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's relatively concise, but the Args section could be more streamlined (e.g., merging example into the parameter description). No wasted sentences, but minor verbosity in formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter AI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (costs, limits, auth), output structure details beyond 'dict', and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for all three parameters: file_ids as a list of IDs with an example, prompt as the question, and ai_agent_id as optional with default behavior. However, it lacks details on ID formats, prompt constraints, or agent ID sourcing, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about multiple files using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('multiple files'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' beyond the 'multiple' vs implied 'single' distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' or other AI tools like 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive), but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format mention is minimal ('result of the deletion or an error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). The purpose statement is front-loaded, though the formatting with explicit sections is slightly verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, what 'collaboration' means in this context, or detailed error handling. The sibling tools show this is part of a collaboration management system, but the description doesn't connect to that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'collaboration_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the collaboration to delete'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain ID format or where to find it. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of format details slightly reduces the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific collaboration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_update_tool' or 'box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool' beyond the obvious action difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), what happens after deletion, or when to use other collaboration tools like update or list tools instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the returned dictionary structure contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and subsequent sections are organized efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value structure beyond 'dictionary containing list of collaborations or error message', doesn't mention authentication or permissions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format, where to obtain it, or provide examples. With only one parameter and some documentation, this meets the baseline for adequate but not comprehensive coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'collaborations on a specific file', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' by specifying 'file' rather than 'folder', but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' or other collaboration tools. It simply states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether authentication/permissions are required, what format the collaborations list takes, if there are pagination limits, or what error conditions might occur. The mention of 'error message' in returns is minimal context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx (Context): The MCP context' line adds minimal value since context is typically implicit in MCP tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the collaboration data structure returned, authentication requirements, error handling, or how this differs from similar folder collaboration tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the parameter name 'folder_id' and clarifies it's 'The ID of the folder to list collaborations for', which gives basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain where to find folder IDs, format requirements, or validation rules, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'collaborations on a specific folder', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from file-based collaboration tools (like box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool) by specifying 'folder', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other folder collaboration tools (like box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple sibling tools for folder collaborations (box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool, box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool, box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool), there's no indication whether this tool lists all collaborations or serves a different purpose compared to those user/group-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects. It mentions pagination via 'marker' and 'limit', but doesn't describe how pagination works (e.g., default limits, marker usage). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into a single flowing paragraph rather than separate sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters and the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits), and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. The output schema handles return values, so that aspect is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 3 parameters (batch_id, marker, limit), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'batch_id' is required and identifies 'marker' and 'limit' as optional for pagination. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints for 'batch_id' or typical values for 'limit', leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Doc Gen jobs in a specific batch.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which likely lists all jobs) by specifying 'in a specific batch.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' (which might list template-related jobs), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which might list all jobs without batch filtering) or 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool' (for single job details). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing batch ID from 'box_docgen_create_batch_tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this lists jobs 'for the current user', which implies authentication is needed, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond mentioning parameters, or what happens if no jobs exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter and return documentation. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description rather than a separate Args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks important behavioral context like authentication requirements, error conditions, and pagination mechanics that would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 2 parameters (marker, limit) with basic types and purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., limit ranges) or marker format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all Box Doc Gen jobs for the current user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple sibling tools related to Doc Gen jobs (e.g., 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the file is already marked. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: defining the action, listing arguments, and specifying the return. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' into the main flow).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'file_id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of 'file_id' (e.g., where to find it, valid patterns). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some compensation but lacks depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template') and identifies the resource ('file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (like box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool or box_docgen_template_list_tool), which would require mentioning creation vs. retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client or a specific file state), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that might handle templates differently (e.g., retrieval or listing tools). Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements (though 'client' parameter hints at it), rate limits, error conditions beyond 'error message', or what happens if the template_id doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, Args, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place. The purpose statement is front-loaded. Minor improvement could be merging the purpose and Args sections more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with 1 parameter and output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool ('box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool') that serves nearly identical purpose, it should better differentiate usage context. The output schema existence reduces need to detail return values, but more behavioral context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'client (BoxClient): Authenticated Box client' and 'template_id (str): ID of the template.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details for template_id (UUID, numeric, etc.) or explain where to find template IDs, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Retrieve details of a specific Box Doc Gen template' - a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Box Doc Gen template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' by specifying retrieval of a single template by ID rather than listing multiple templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' which serves a similar purpose with different identification method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' (when you have ID vs name) or 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' (when you need a specific template vs browsing). The only usage context is implied through the parameter requirement for template_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (implying read-only) and mentions it returns metadata or an error message, but lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific metadata is included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal words to convey essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into natural language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter structure, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially since annotations are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'template_name' and its purpose ('Name of the template'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format expectations, constraints, or examples for the template name parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve details') and resource ('specific Box Doc Gen template by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' by specifying retrieval by name rather than ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tool', nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication or template existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions pagination parameters ('marker', 'limit') and error handling in returns, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-safe understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly verbose. Every part adds value, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return types but lacks behavioral context like error conditions or pagination behavior. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section, including optionality and basic semantics. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure, limit ranges) or deeper meaning beyond naming, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all tags for a Box Doc Gen template'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' or 'box_file_tag_list_tool', which list tags for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client) or compare it to other tag-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated metadata/collaborations. The return value mention is minimal and doesn't explain error conditions or success criteria beyond 'dictionary containing success message or error'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value mention. It's front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with schema fields. No wasted words, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and rich sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address safety concerns (permanent deletion?), authentication requirements, error handling, or how this differs from other deletion tools. While an output schema exists, the description's return value explanation is vague ('dictionary containing success message or error') without clarifying structure or common responses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' is 'The ID of the file to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric vs string ID), validation rules, or examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file from Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_delete_tool' or 'box_web_link_delete_by_id_tool', but the resource specificity (file vs folder/web link) is implied through the tool name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), what happens to the deleted file (permanent vs recoverable), or how it differs from similar operations like moving to trash. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., metadata, permissions, content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return type. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. The structured 'Args' and 'return' sections help readability, though the return type 'dict[str, Any]' is somewhat vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should document the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to compensate—such as clarifying what 'information' includes or noting common use cases. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find file IDs or provide examples, keeping it at a baseline level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get information' and the resource 'about a file in Box', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' or 'box_file_download_tool', which would require more precise language about what type of information is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (like box_file_download_tool, box_file_tag_list_tool, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves basic metadata, comprehensive file details, or something else, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Move' which implies mutation/destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify important aspects like: whether this overwrites existing files with the same name, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or potential rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized - a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and parameters minimally, and mentions there's an output schema ('Returns: dict[str, Any]'), which helps. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details about permissions, overwrite behavior, and error conditions that would be important for a file movement operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that names the two parameters (file_id and destination_folder_id) and their types, which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what format these IDs should be in, where to find them, or provide any validation rules. The parameter documentation is basic but functional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a file to a specified destination folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_folder_move_tool or box_file_copy_tool, which would require mentioning this is specifically for moving files (not folders) and that it moves rather than copies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like permissions needed), when not to use it (e.g., if the destination doesn't exist), or how it differs from similar tools like box_file_copy_tool or box_folder_move_tool in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool renames a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, if it affects file metadata or sharing links, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Rename' implies mutation, but without annotations, the description should provide more context about what this operation entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but the structure is somewhat mechanical rather than flowing naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a simple rename tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' as 'The ID of the file to rename' and 'new_name' as 'The new name for the file', which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., name length restrictions, allowed characters), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Rename') and resource ('a file in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_rename_tool' or 'box_file_move_tool', which would require more specific context about when to rename versus move or rename folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (e.g., box_file_move_tool, box_folder_rename_tool, box_file_set_description_tool), there's no indication of when renaming is appropriate versus moving, renaming folders, or setting descriptions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the action ('Clear/remove') and return type, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if this affects file access or compliance), error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief parameter and return details in a structured format. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is minimal for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'file_id' and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't explain format (e.g., numeric string) or constraints, leaving some gaps. With one parameter, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear/remove') and target ('retention date from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_file_retention_date_set_tool' beyond the obvious 'clear' vs 'set' distinction in their names, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection among the many sibling tools, such as when to clear a retention date versus other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Set[s] or update[s]' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing descriptions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter identification. However, it lacks important context about permissions, error handling, and behavioral details that would help an agent use it correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters and their purposes ('file_id: The ID of the file to update', 'description: The new description for the file'), which is helpful but minimal. It doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set or update') and resource ('description of a file in Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like box_file_rename_tool or box_file_move_tool by focusing specifically on description modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from box_folder_set_description_tool, which performs a similar operation on folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. It also doesn't reference similar tools like box_file_rename_tool for other metadata updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a reset operation but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to existing custom download settings, or any rate limits. The description mentions 'based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain how these roles affect the reset behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value documentation. Each sentence serves a clear function. The structure is logical with purpose first, then inputs, then outputs. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the parameter info more naturally rather than as a separate Args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides basic purpose and parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain for a tool that modifies file permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter 'file_id' has no description in schema), but the description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with type information. This adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format or where to find it, leaving some semantic gaps. With 1 parameter and partial documentation, this meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Reset') and resource ('download permissions'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' and 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' by focusing on resetting to default behavior rather than setting specific policies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_open_tool'. It mentions 'default behavior based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain what triggers this need or what the default behavior entails. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes a tag and returns updated file information, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (e.g., what happens if the tag doesn't exist), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting could be more integrated (e.g., combining with natural language).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'file_id' is 'The ID of the file to remove a tag from' and 'tag' is 'The tag to remove'. This clarifies purpose but lacks format details (e.g., tag constraints, file ID format). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but doesn't fully document the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a tag from a file in Box') with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'box_file_tag_add_tool' and 'box_file_tag_list_tool' by specifying removal rather than addition or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_folder_tag_remove_tool' for folder vs. file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the tag must exist on the file), compare to similar tools (e.g., 'box_file_tag_add_tool' for adding tags), or specify error conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (markdown or plain text) and preference for markdown, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, file size constraints, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by details on output format and parameters. The structure with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections is organized, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise. There's minimal redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (text extraction from files), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool effectively compared to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' as 'The ID of the file to extract text from', adding essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format or source of the file ID, which could be helpful given the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'extract' and resource 'text from a file in Box', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_ai_extract_freeform_tool' or 'box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool', which also involve extraction but with different focuses or methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance, mentioning that markdown is preferred if available, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'box_ai_extract_freeform_tool' or 'box_file_download_tool'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as file accessibility or permissions, and doesn't specify exclusions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is to 'remove a lock' (implying a mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. While efficient, the Args and Returns formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter, but overall it's well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on permissions, errors, and usage context, which are important for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what a valid file ID looks like or where to find it, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a lock') and resource ('from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' beyond the obvious inverse relationship, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the file must be locked first), error conditions, or related tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('Removes') but does not mention whether this requires specific user permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on folder access), or error handling. The return value description is vague ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'), lacking details on structure or conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args section includes redundant context ('ctx: Context: The context containing Box client information') that could be inferred from the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical details: behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility), error handling specifics, and a clear output structure. For a mutation tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'folder_id' as 'ID of the folder to remove from favorites', adding basic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Folder Id'. However, it does not provide format examples (e.g., numeric string), validation rules, or sourcing guidance, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Removes') and resource ('a folder from the user's favorites in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_folder_favorites_add_tool', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as the sibling 'box_folder_favorites_add_tool' or other folder management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where removal is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve information' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably interacts with an external API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds minimal value since it's not part of the user-facing schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about what information is retrieved and any constraints. The return value description ('Dictionary containing folder information or error message') is vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'folder_id' with its type and purpose. This compensates somewhat for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond what's minimally necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve information') and resource ('specific folder in Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'box_file_info_tool' or 'box_folder_items_list_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other folder-related tools like box_folder_items_list_tool), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'optional recursive traversal' and 'Maximum items per API call,' which adds some context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the folder doesn't exist, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, and the 'Returns' part is vague ('Dictionary containing folder items list or error message'), slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on authentication, error handling, output structure, and sibling differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on behavioral aspects and return values would enhance completeness for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters (folder_id, is_recursive, limit) with types and defaults, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain parameter semantics deeply, such as what 'folder_id' format is expected (e.g., numeric ID), what 'recursive' entails in practice, or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. This provides basic compensation but falls short of full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List items in a Box folder with optional recursive traversal.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('items in a Box folder'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' or 'box_search_folder_by_name_tool', which might also retrieve folder-related information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions 'optional recursive traversal' but doesn't explain scenarios where recursion is beneficial or when other tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' might be more appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as authentication or folder access permissions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implies read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with non-existent folders. The return format description ('Dictionary containing the list of tags or error message') is minimal and doesn't explain the structure of successful responses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and subsequent sections are efficiently formatted. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain authentication context (the 'ctx' parameter), doesn't describe the return structure beyond 'dictionary', and provides no error handling guidance. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section that documents the single parameter 'folder_id' and its purpose ('ID of the folder to list tags for'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or where to obtain folder IDs, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('tags associated with a folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_tag_list_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tags_tool', which perform similar listing operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple tag-related tools in the sibling list (box_file_tag_list_tool, box_folder_tag_add_tool, box_folder_tag_remove_tool), but the description doesn't explain when list_tags is appropriate versus add/remove operations or file versus folder tag operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool moves a folder but doesn't describe key behavioral traits: whether this operation is reversible, what happens to subfolders and files within the moved folder, whether it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects like breaking shared links. The return value is vaguely described as 'Dictionary containing the moved folder object or error message,' lacking details on success/error formats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the inclusion of 'ctx: Context: The context containing Box client information' is redundant with typical MCP patterns and could be omitted for better conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as error handling, permission requirements, behavioral details (e.g., impact on nested items), and clear return value specifications. For a tool that modifies data, this level of documentation is insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters (folder_id, destination_parent_folder_id) and indicating they are IDs, but it doesn't explain format requirements (e.g., numeric vs. string IDs), validation rules, or what happens if the destination doesn't exist. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score, but significant gaps remain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Moves a folder') and resource ('in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like box_folder_copy_tool (which copies rather than moves) and box_folder_info_tool (which retrieves information). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'move' entails in Box's context (e.g., whether it preserves metadata or permissions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose box_folder_move_tool over box_folder_copy_tool (for relocating vs. duplicating) or box_file_move_tool (for moving files instead of folders). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions or avoiding moving folders to restricted locations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool renames a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to folder contents. The return value mention is minimal ('Dictionary containing the renamed folder object or error message'), lacking details on success/error formats. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., merging 'ctx' explanation). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter explanation is somewhat redundant given context signals.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (a mutation tool renaming folders), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), error handling, and output structure. For a tool that modifies data in a system like Box, this is insufficient to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by naming parameters ('folder_id', 'new_name') and their purposes ('ID of the folder to rename', 'New name for the folder'), which compensates partially. However, it doesn't specify constraints (e.g., new_name length, allowed characters) or examples, leaving gaps. With 2 parameters and some added meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Renames') and resource ('a folder in Box'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_rename_tool' or 'box_folder_move_tool', which have similar rename/move functionality for different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing folder permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot rename root folders), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'box_file_rename_tool'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation ('Adds'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether tags are case-sensitive, if duplicate tags are allowed, what happens on error, or rate limits. The return value description is vague ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns). The first sentence states the core functionality upfront. The Args section is organized but could be more concise by integrating parameter descriptions into the main text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updated folder object' contains, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The sibling tools list shows this is part of a tagging system, but the description doesn't contextualize it within that system or mention related operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description includes an Args section that documents both parameters (folder_id and tag), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., tag length limits, folder_id format) or examples, keeping it at baseline adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds a tag') and target resource ('to a folder in Box'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_folder_tag_remove_tool' or 'box_file_tag_add_tool', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools like 'box_folder_tag_remove_tool' or 'box_file_tag_add_tool' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation (implies read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all groups' entails (e.g., includes nested groups?). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., 'ctx' is generic and adds little value). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. It's adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps that could hinder effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics: it explains that 'user_id' is 'The ID of the user whose groups are to be listed.' The input schema has 0% description coverage, so this is helpful but basic. It doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all groups that a specific user belongs to.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'box_groups_list_members_tool' (which lists members of a group) and 'box_groups_search_tool' (which searches groups). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies a user-centric focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid user ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_groups_search_tool'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated, what format the member list takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The Args/Returns sections are helpful but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it should provide more context about when to use it, what the return format looks like, and any behavioral constraints. It's minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'group_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the group whose members are to be listed'), which adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find group IDs or provide format examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all members of a specific group'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' or 'box_users_list_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (including other group-related tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' and 'box_groups_search_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool performs a 'partial match search' and returns 'a dictionary containing the list of matching groups', which gives basic operational context. However, it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation is redundant without added value. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics partially but misses behavioral details like authentication, pagination, and error handling. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'query' parameter as 'The search query to match against group names', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter (Context object), leaving it partially undocumented. With one parameter well-described and one not, and low schema coverage, this meets the baseline for marginal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for groups by name' with the specific verb 'search' and resource 'groups'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' by specifying search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' which searches users rather than groups. The 'partial match search' detail adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' for listing groups or 'box_search_tool' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if the deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description mentions returning 'The response from the Box API' but gives no indication of what that response contains or means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The purpose statement is front-loaded and direct. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow rather than appearing as a separate documentation block.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'deleting the metadata' entails operationally, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or what the API response structure looks like. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for both parameters ('file_id' and 'template_key') in the Args section, explaining what they represent. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples that would help the agent use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('metadata template instance associated with a specific file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_metadata_update_instance_on_file_tool' or 'box_metadata_get_instance_on_file_tool' beyond the basic action difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. There's no mention of when deletion is appropriate versus updating metadata, or what happens to the file after metadata removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Retrieve') and return type ('dict'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args section includes 'ctx' which is typically implicit in tool calls and could be considered minor clutter. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter name but misses critical context like error conditions, authentication needs, return structure details, or how this tool fits among metadata template siblings. For a retrieval tool in a complex system, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by naming the parameter ('template_key') and indicating it's a string key for retrieval, but doesn't explain format constraints, examples, or where to find valid keys. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic semantics but insufficient detail for confident use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('metadata template') with a specific identifier ('by its key'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_metadata_template_get_by_name_tool' and 'box_metadata_template_list_tool' by specifying the key-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more explicit about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'box_metadata_template_get_by_name_tool' or 'box_metadata_template_list_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or access rights. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the template doesn't exist), or whether this operation has side effects. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the inclusion of 'ctx' in Args might be considered implementation detail rather than user-facing documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While it states the basic purpose and parameter, it lacks crucial context about authentication, error conditions, return format details, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about many behavioral aspects when using this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('template_name: The name of the metadata template to retrieve'), which clarifies what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding how to properly specify template names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a metadata template by its name.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('metadata template'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' or 'box_metadata_template_list_tool', which appear to retrieve templates by different identifiers or list multiple templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' and 'box_metadata_template_list_tool' available, the agent receives no indication about when name-based retrieval is appropriate versus key-based retrieval or listing all templates. There's also no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'List all metadata templates' and returns 'A list of all metadata templates'. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only vs. destructive, which is inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose but includes boilerplate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that repeat obvious information (e.g., 'ctx' parameter and return type). This adds unnecessary length without enhancing clarity, reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) but lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format details, error handling, or integration context, leaving gaps for the agent despite low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the baseline; it doesn't need to compensate, but also doesn't provide extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all metadata templates in Box', providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' or 'box_metadata_template_get_by_name_tool' which retrieve specific templates, missing full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' for retrieving specific templates, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool updates metadata and can optionally remove non-included data, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid template key), or the structure of the API response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is helpful, though the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in Args is unnecessary clutter since it's typically implicit in MCP tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors), usage guidance, and details on the response format, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats (e.g., what a valid template_key looks like), constraints, or examples for the metadata dictionary structure, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'metadata template instance associated with a specific file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its metadata-related siblings like 'box_metadata_set_instance_on_file_tool' or 'box_metadata_get_instance_on_file_tool', which would require mentioning partial updates versus complete replacements or retrievals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing metadata instance), comparison to sibling tools like 'set' or 'delete' metadata instances, or scenarios where this update operation is appropriate versus creating a new instance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'locates' a folder, implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't specify if it returns multiple matches, handles partial names, or has any rate limits or permissions required. The return type 'List[dict]: The folder ID' is confusing and incomplete, adding little clarity. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'return' sections. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'return' section is ambiguous ('List[dict]: The folder ID'), which slightly reduces clarity, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like search scope, error handling, or how results are formatted. For a search tool with one parameter, this minimal description fails to provide enough context for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'folder_name' as a string, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints like length, allowed characters, or case sensitivity, which could be important for accurate usage. This provides basic but insufficient detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Locate a folder in Box by its name.' It specifies the verb ('locate') and resource ('folder in Box'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_search_tool' or 'box_folder_info_tool', which might also help find folders, so it's not fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the folder must be accessible or if authentication is needed, nor does it compare to other search or folder-related tools in the sibling list. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this retrieves an existing shared link but doesn't clarify what happens if no link exists (returns null/error?), whether this requires specific permissions, or rate limits. The mention of 'The response from the Box API' is vague about format or potential errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, documenting the parameter, and indicating the response type. However, the 'ctx (Context)' parameter documentation is unnecessary boilerplate that doesn't help the AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the response contains (beyond 'shared link details'), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this differs from similar shared link tools. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining 'file_id (str): The ID of the file to get the shared link for.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'File Id' title. However, it doesn't explain where to find file IDs, format requirements, or validation rules. With only one parameter, the description provides basic but incomplete semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a shared link') and resource ('for a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_shared_link_file_create_or_update_tool' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' which also retrieves shared links but via URL rather than file ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing file access permissions), when to choose this over 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool', or what happens if no shared link exists. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal operation (implying mutation/destructive action) but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if no shared link exists. The mention of returning a Box API response is minimal and doesn't describe error handling or success conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'ctx' parameter documentation is unnecessary clutter since it's typically implicit in MCP tools, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover error cases, authentication requirements, or what the Box API response contains. The sibling tools list shows many alternatives, but no differentiation is provided, making contextual understanding incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID (e.g., format, where to find it) or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('a shared link from a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool' or other shared link removal tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool'. It also lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing shared link) or context for when removal is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it states this is a 'create or update' operation (implying mutation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether this overwrites existing shared links, what happens when parameters are omitted, or what the response structure looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are well-organized. However, the parameter explanations are overly terse, and the overall description could be more front-loaded with critical usage information rather than burying it in parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'create or update' means behaviorally, doesn't document the response format, doesn't provide examples of valid parameter values, and doesn't mention error conditions or constraints. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, but these explanations are minimal ('The ID of the web link', 'The access level for the shared link') and don't provide format details, valid values (e.g., what access levels are allowed), or behavioral implications. The description adds some semantic context but doesn't fully address the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update a shared link') and the target resource ('for a web link'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_file_create_or_update_tool' or 'box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool', which perform similar operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool', 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool', and 'box_shared_link_web_link_find_by_shared_link_url_tool', there's no indication of when this create/update operation is appropriate versus those other operations. The description also doesn't mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'find' operation, implying a read-only lookup, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the link is invalid or password-protected. The mention of password parameter hints at authentication needs, but this isn't elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise. The 'ctx' parameter documentation is unnecessary boilerplate that doesn't add value for the AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned 'web link details' include, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites for using this tool. For a lookup tool with authentication implications (password parameter), this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (shared_link_url, password) and adds that password is optional with a default of None, which provides some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what format the shared_link_url should be in, what constitutes a valid URL, or how the password interacts with the API.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a web link by its shared link URL.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('web link'), and distinguishes it from other web link tools (like create, update, delete). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for web links and shared links (e.g., box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool, box_web_link_get_by_id_tool), there's no indication of which tool to choose for which scenario. The only implied usage is when you have a shared link URL, but that's obvious from the parameter name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'shared link details' include. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API like Box.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, parameters, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections use a code-like format that's slightly verbose but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, response structure, and how this tool fits among siblings. For a Box API tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'web_link_id' and its purpose ('ID of the web link to get the shared link for'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., Box-specific ID patterns) or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'shared link for a web link', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool', which would require mentioning this is for retrieval only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing web link), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' or 'box_web_link_get_by_id_tool', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal operation, implying mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, is reversible, affects other aspects of the web link, or has rate limits. The description mentions a return value but doesn't explain what the response contains or potential error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The Args/Returns sections are standard but helpful. No wasted sentences, though the return documentation could be more informative given the lack of output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context about permissions, side effects, error handling, and what constitutes a successful operation. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'web_link_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the web link to remove the shared link from'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format examples, length constraints, or where to obtain this ID, leaving some practical gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a shared link') and the target resource ('from a web link'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_file_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool', which perform analogous operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing shared link), when this operation is appropriate versus other web link management tools, or what happens after removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Assign') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it sends notifications. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'ctx' parameter in Args is extraneous as it's not part of the input schema and could confuse users.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a task assignment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, return values beyond 'dict', and how it interacts with other task tools. For a mutation operation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters (task_id and email) and their types, adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., email validation, task ID source) or constraints, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Assign a Box task') and the method ('to a user via email'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'box_task_assign_by_user_id_tool', which appears to assign tasks by user ID instead of email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'box_task_assign_by_user_id_tool' or other task-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the email must correspond to an existing Box user or if the task must be in a specific state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or affects system state. The description mentions returning 'The response from the Box API' but doesn't describe format, pagination, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, args explanation, and returns statement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections add necessary structure without redundancy. However, the ctx parameter documentation ('The context object...') is boilerplate that doesn't aid the AI agent and could be omitted for better conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks critical context: authentication requirements, error handling, response format details, pagination, rate limits, and comparison to sibling tools. For a tool interacting with an external API (Box), this leaves the agent under-informed about operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: it explains that task_id is 'The ID of the task to list assignments for,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation rules, or where to obtain the ID. With 1 parameter and partial clarification, this meets the baseline for minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('assignments associated with a Box task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_task_details_tool or box_task_assignment_details_tool by focusing on listing all assignments rather than task details or single assignment details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings in the extensive list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task_id), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like box_task_assignment_details_tool (for single assignments) or box_task_file_list_tool (for task files). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing tasks. It only states the return is 'The response from the Box API' without describing format or success indicators.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds minimal value for an AI agent and could be omitted for better conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about permissions, error handling, return format details, and how this tool relates to other task management tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with basic type information and one default value, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints (e.g., message length limits), or provide examples of valid values for 'due_at' format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new completion task') and target resource ('for a Box file'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling task tools like 'box_task_review_create_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'box_task_review_create_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, offering only basic parameter documentation without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the tool lists tasks and returns a Box API response, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it paginates results, what error conditions exist, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and no wasted words. However, the 'ctx' parameter documentation in the Args section is unnecessary for an AI agent since it's an internal implementation detail, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (API interaction with Box tasks), zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' means in Box context, what information the response contains, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that interacts with external APIs, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'file_id (str): The ID of the file to list tasks for,' which essentially restates what's in the schema (a required string parameter called file_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining where to find file IDs, format requirements, or validation rules. The baseline of 3 reflects that the schema already documents the parameter's existence and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all tasks associated with a Box file.' This includes a specific verb ('List'), resource ('tasks'), and scope ('associated with a Box file'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling task-related tools like box_task_details_tool or box_task_assignments_list_tool, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple task-related tools in the sibling list (box_task_details_tool, box_task_assignments_list_tool, box_task_assignment_details_tool, etc.), there's no indication of when this file-specific task listing tool is appropriate versus other task tools that might work on tasks directly or assignments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this creates a persistent change, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. The mention of 'The response from the Box API' is vague about what that response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in the Args section is unnecessary clutter since it's not a user-provided parameter, and the structure could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what a 'review task' actually is in Box's ecosystem, what permissions are required, how assignments work (since the tool mentions assignees but doesn't explain how they're specified), and what the API response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 4 parameters: identifies 'file_id' as the target file, explains 'due_at' as optional due date, 'message' as optional description, and clarifies the boolean flag's purpose. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new review task') and the target resource ('for a Box file'), which provides specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling task-related tools like 'box_task_assign_by_email_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 numerous sibling tools for task management (assignments, updates, completions, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other task tools might be more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what specific aspects of the task can be updated beyond the listed parameters. It only states it returns 'The response from the Box API' without describing format or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted words, but not perfectly front-loaded with critical behavioral information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks crucial behavioral context like permissions, side effects, error handling, and detailed return format. The description doesn't compensate sufficiently for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional new due date for the task'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details for 'due_at' (datetime format) or clarify what 'message' represents in Box's context, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a Box task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other task-related tools like 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' or 'box_task_remove_tool' among the many siblings, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 numerous sibling tools including other task-related tools like 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' and 'box_task_remove_tool', there's no indication of when this specific update tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action 'List all users' but does not mention critical details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned dictionary. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, but the subsequent lines about 'Args' and 'Returns' add minimal value and could be considered clutter. While not overly verbose, these extra details do not earn their place, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing users (which may involve pagination, permissions, or data limits) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned dictionary contains, how results are formatted, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly notes no arguments beyond the context object, which is appropriate. However, it includes unnecessary details about 'ctx (Context)' and 'Returns: dict', which are redundant given the schema and lack of output schema, but this does not detract significantly from the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all users in the Box account', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling user-related tools like 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool' or 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool', which could cause confusion about when to use this broad listing versus more targeted searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools for locating users by email or name, and searching by name or email, there is no indication that this tool is for retrieving all users without filtering, while others are for specific queries. This omission could lead to inefficient or incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'partial match search' which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no matches are found. The description is minimal beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second adds important behavioral context (partial match), and the third documents parameters and return value. However, the Args/Returns formatting is somewhat redundant since the schema already defines parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'dictionary containing list of matching users', doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'query' parameter matches against 'user names and email addresses' and specifies it's a 'partial match search', which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, format requirements, or constraints for the query parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('users') with the specific criteria ('by name or email'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling user tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when partial match search is preferred over exact match tools like 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', nor does it provide any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with the general 'box_users_list_tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if a web link with the same name already exists. It mentions the return is 'The response from the Box API' but provides no details about the response structure or what success/failure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool. The opening statement 'Create a Box web link' is front-loaded. However, the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in the Args section adds unnecessary technical detail that doesn't help the AI agent understand tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Box web link' actually is (versus a regular file/folder or shared link), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage. The return value description is vague ('The response from the Box API') with no indication of structure or key fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a parameter list with basic explanations (e.g., 'The URL of the web link', 'The ID of the parent folder'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements (URL validation, folder ID format), constraints, or provide examples. The optional parameters are noted but without guidance on when to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Box web link', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_web_link_get_by_id_tool and box_web_link_update_by_id_tool by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools for web links (get, update, delete, shared link operations), but the description doesn't indicate when creation is appropriate versus using shared link tools or other approaches. No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves web link details but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool interacting with an external API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'ctx' parameter explanation is generic and could be more specific to Box context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Box API tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format specifics, and how it differs from similar tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'web_link_id' parameter as 'The ID of the web link to retrieve,' adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain the ID format (e.g., numeric string) or provide examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a Box web link by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Box web link'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool' or 'box_web_link_create_tool', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool' for shared links or 'box_web_link_create_tool' for creation) or specify prerequisites like authentication. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'The context object containing the request and lifespan context' is verbose).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects), detailed parameter guidance, and output information beyond 'The response from the Box API'. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with basic explanations (e.g., 'The ID of the web link to update'), but doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. The optional parameters are noted with defaults, but overall the semantic value added is minimal beyond naming the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a Box web link by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('Box web link'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_web_link_create_tool' or 'box_web_link_delete_by_id_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools like 'box_web_link_create_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool'. The minimal guidance is insufficient for an update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool creates a collaboration, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section mentions 'error message' but lacks detail on failure modes. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but includes redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, but the Args section repeats parameter names without adding much new context. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description partially compensates with parameter explanations and a basic return type hint. However, it lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: no mention of authentication requirements, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The output schema absence means the return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is vague and insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful details for all parameters: file_id and group_id are explained, role lists available values and default, and optional parameters (is_access_only, expires_at, notify) have clear descriptions. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully cover format specifics like DateTime for expires_at.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a collaboration on a file with a group specified by group ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and target ('group specified by group ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool, which creates collaborations with users instead of groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool (for folders) or box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (for users), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an authenticated client or appropriate permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates a collaboration, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section hints at error messages, but this is minimal. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but is verbose. Sentences like 'Create a collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' are efficient, but the parameter explanations are lengthy. It's front-loaded with the purpose, yet could be more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter names). Overall, it's adequate but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The Returns section mentions 'Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message,' which helps but is vague. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves gaps in understanding full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining all 7 parameters in the Args section, including meanings, defaults (e.g., role defaults to 'editor'), and options (e.g., available roles). This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't fully cover nuances like format for 'expires_at' (DateTime) or clarify 'can_view_path' (implied by 'is_access_only'), preventing a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a folder'), and target ('user specified by user ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool' or 'box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple collaboration tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool', 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. It also lacks prerequisites like authentication requirements or permission levels needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a document, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the template ID or folder ID are invalid. The example shows data structure but doesn't explain behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately structured with sections for Args and Returns, but includes redundant 'example:' labels and could be more concise. The example data is helpful but takes significant space. Overall, it's functional but not optimally streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a document creation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, but with output schema present, the description does reasonably well. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return type, but lacks behavioral context about authentication, errors, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides substantial parameter context. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides a detailed example of the user_input structure, clarifies output_type options ('pdf' or 'docx'), and notes generated_file_name is optional. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a single document') and resource ('from a Doc Gen template using user input'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_docgen_create_batch_tool', which appears to handle batch operations versus this single-file creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from the batch creation sibling tool. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the tool searches for files, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, how results are paginated, or what happens with large result sets. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, it includes formatting issues (e.g., 'DESCRIPTION,' with a trailing comma) and could be more front-loaded. The parameter documentation is thorough but somewhat verbose given the simple parameters. It earns its place but isn't optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. With no annotations and basic search functionality, it should provide more operational context about how the search works and its limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully documents all 4 parameters with meaningful explanations: 'query' purpose, 'file_extensions' format example, 'content_types' with enum values and description, and 'ancestor_folder_ids' purpose. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for files in Box with the given query.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('files in Box'), and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'box_search_folder_by_name_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (including other search tools), there's no indication of when this general file search is appropriate versus more specialized searches. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions that an AI agent processes the question and returns a response, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For an AI query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'ctx' parameter explanation is vague ('The context object containing the request and lifespan context'), which slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't cover response structure, error cases, or operational constraints. For an AI tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: hub_id (ID of the hub), prompt (the question), and ai_agent_id (optional AI agent ID with default behavior). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format examples beyond '1234567890' for hub_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about a hub using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('hub'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool or box_ai_ask_file_single_tool, which ask questions about files rather than hubs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to other AI question tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'set[s] a file to be downloadable by company users' and 'restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles,' implying a mutation that changes permissions. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description for faster comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with permission changes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameter well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type ('str') and purpose ('The ID of the file to update'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'File Id' without description), the description fully compensates by adding clear parameter semantics. With 0% schema coverage and 1 parameter, the description does an excellent job explaining the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a file to be downloadable by company users (restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles).' It specifies the verb ('set'), resource ('file'), and effect ('downloadable by company users'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings like 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('List'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with non-existent files. The description is minimal and lacks important context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter and return documentation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, though the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks important context. With no annotations and many sibling tools, it should provide more guidance on usage scenarios, error handling, and differentiation from other tag/file tools to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this documentation is sufficient to compensate for the schema gap, though it could provide more detail about file ID format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tags associated with a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' or 'box_file_tag_add_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are many sibling tools for file operations, including tag-related tools like 'box_file_tag_add_tool' and 'box_file_tag_remove_tool', but no indication of when this listing tool is appropriate versus those mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional password parameter but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the link is invalid. For a tool that likely interacts with external APIs, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure beyond 'dict: The response from the Box API', nor does it cover error handling or usage constraints. Given the complexity of API interactions, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: it explains that 'shared_link_url' identifies the file and 'password' is optional for protected links. However, it doesn't clarify URL format, password constraints, or provide examples, leaving important details undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Find a file') and the resource ('by its shared link URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_info_tool or box_shared_link_folder_find_by_shared_link_url_tool which target different resources. The verb 'find' is precise and the scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid shared link), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like box_shared_link_file_get_tool or box_shared_link_web_link_find_by_shared_link_url_tool. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive action) but provides no additional context about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what the API response contains. The description mentions a return value but doesn't explain what success/failure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args/Returns formatting could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether deletion affects shared links, or what the response dict contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'web_link_id' and explains it's 'The ID of the web link to delete,' which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title 'Web Link Id.' However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or where to find this ID, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a Box web link by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_web_link_create_tool and box_web_link_update_by_id_tool. It uses precise verb+resource language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it's clear this deletes web links, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or what happens to related resources. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool returns information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., server version, supported tools, configuration), making it hard for an agent to understand the tool's value. For a metadata tool in a complex Box server context, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('information about the MCP server'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than Box operations. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is returned (e.g., version, capabilities, configuration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention typical use cases (e.g., server discovery, debugging), prerequisites, or relationships with other tools. Given the sibling tools are all Box-related, this tool stands alone but lacks contextual placement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though hinted by 'Authenticated Box client'), error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the job ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters, but lacks context about when to use it, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but behavioral context is sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'job_id' parameter as 'ID of the Doc Gen job' and mentioning the 'client' parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify the ID format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Box Doc Gen job by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools for listing jobs and templates, but no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving a single job by ID rather than listing multiple jobs or using other retrieval methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions pagination parameters (marker, limit) and the return type, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no jobs are found. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (DocGenJobsV2025R0), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and pagination behavior to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a parameter list with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that 'template_id' is for a specific template, 'marker' is for pagination, and 'limit' controls max items per page. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., template ID format, limit range).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Doc Gen jobs that used a specific template.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and scope ('that used a specific template'). It distinguishes from general job listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple job-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool', 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool'), but the description doesn't indicate when this template-filtered listing is preferred over other listing methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it correctly identifies this as a copy operation (implying mutation), it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the destination already has a file with the same name, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words. The only minor issue is that the opening sentence could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints, but overall it's efficient and organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains the core action and parameters at a high level, and the presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks important contextual information about permissions, error conditions, and behavioral nuances that would help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description adds some semantic value by explaining that 'new_name' is optional and provides a new name for the copied file, and that 'version_number' is optional and specifies which version to copy. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap - it doesn't explain what format file IDs should be in, what happens if version_number is invalid, or provide examples of valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Copy a file') and resource ('to a specified destination folder in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_move_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 box_file_move_tool (which moves rather than copies) or box_folder_copy_tool (which copies folders). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions to access both source and destination. Without this context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive action ('Deletes') and the recursive option, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to folder contents when recursive=false. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical context about permissions, safety considerations, error handling, and return format details. The parameter semantics help, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that permanently deletes data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'folder_id' is explained as 'ID of the folder to delete' with type information, and 'recursive' is described with its purpose and default value. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('a folder from Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_delete_tool', but the resource specificity (folder vs file) provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions), when recursive deletion is appropriate, or how this differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list like 'box_file_delete_tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions that the sync feature is for Box Sync (discontinued) and not used by Box Drive, which adds useful context about the tool's relevance. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections that organize parameter and return value information efficiently. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or wasted text. The only minor improvement would be integrating the Box Sync/Drive note more seamlessly into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a baseline level of completeness. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type (though vaguely as 'dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'). However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error conditions, rate limits, or example usage, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: folder_id ('ID of the folder to set sync state for') and sync_state ('Specifies whether a folder should be synced... Value is one of synced,not_synced,partially_synced'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., folder_id format) or constraints beyond the enum values, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sets the sync state for a folder in Box.' This specifies the verb ('Sets'), resource ('sync state for a folder'), and platform ('Box'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool or box_folder_set_description_tool, which also modify folder properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by mentioning that sync state 'is used by Box Sync (discontinued) and is not used by Box Drive,' which helps the agent understand the tool's limited applicability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites like required permissions, leaving some ambiguity about its practical application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via 'marker' and 'limit' parameters, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements (though implied by 'client'), rate limits, error handling, or what 'accessible to the user' entails (e.g., permissions). The return type hint adds some value but lacks detail on metadata structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. There's minimal waste, though the return statement could be more concise. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context like authentication, error scenarios, or metadata examples. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness for this list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all 2 parameters ('marker' for pagination, 'limit' for max items per page) and their purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify default values, constraints (e.g., min/max for 'limit'), or format details for 'marker'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Box Doc Gen templates accessible to the user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' and 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' by focusing on listing all templates rather than retrieving specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools in the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare with similar tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tags_tool', or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary with thumbnail image content in base64 or error message'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential behavioral complexities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still cover operational aspects more thoroughly given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by detailing all six parameters with clear semantics: 'file_id' as the file ID, 'extension' with allowed values ('png' or 'jpg') and default, and dimension parameters with pixel ranges (32-320). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Download') and resource ('thumbnail image of a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' by focusing on downloading the actual image rather than generating a URL, though this distinction could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' for URL generation or 'box_file_download_tool' for full file downloads. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing folders, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of returning 'error message' hints at possible failures but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is organized, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient for understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and detailed return value explanation. It's minimally adequate for a simple creation tool but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_folder_id' with the specific note to use '0' for root folder. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates') and resource ('new folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling folder creation tools (like box_folder_copy_tool or box_web_link_create_tool), but the specificity is sufficient for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_folder_copy_tool or box_web_link_create_tool. The description mentions the parent_folder_id parameter defaulting to '0' for root, which hints at usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'Sets collaboration settings' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The return statement mentions 'updated folder object or error message' but lacks detail on format or conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then details parameters and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement is essential, and parameter explanations are necessary given 0% schema coverage. Minor deduction because the 'ctx' parameter explanation is vague ('Context containing Box client information'), which could be more precise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks in other areas. It explains parameters thoroughly but misses behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output details beyond 'dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explicitly listing all 4 parameters with clear semantics: 'folder_id (str): ID of the folder...', 'can_non_owners_invite (bool): Specifies if users who are not the owner...', etc. Each parameter is explained beyond the schema's basic titles, adding crucial context about what each boolean controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sets collaboration settings for a folder in Box.' It specifies the verb ('Sets'), resource ('collaboration settings for a folder'), and context ('in Box'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_update_tool' or 'box_folder_set_sync_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 handling collaborations and folder settings (e.g., 'box_collaboration_update_tool', 'box_folder_set_sync_tool'), there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios for this tool. The minimal score reflects this lack of contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation which implies mutation/writing, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, permissions needed, whether this overwrites existing metadata, error conditions, or rate limits. The metadata example provides some behavioral context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. The metadata example is appropriately detailed but could be more concise. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though the example could be summarized more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. The parameter explanations and example are helpful, but missing behavioral context (permissions, overwrite behavior, error handling) and return value details leaves gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does well by providing clear parameter explanations and a comprehensive metadata example showing field types and formats. The example demonstrates string, date, float, enum, and multiselect field types, adding significant value beyond the basic schema. However, it doesn't explain template_key format or file_id sourcing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'metadata template instance on a specific file', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like box_metadata_update_instance_on_file_tool and box_metadata_delete_instance_on_file_tool by specifying this is for setting/creating metadata instances rather than updating or deleting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter descriptions and metadata example, suggesting this tool is for applying metadata templates to files. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like box_metadata_update_instance_on_file_tool or box_metadata_template_create_tool, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing metadata template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the API response contains. The mention of 'Box API response' is vague and doesn't help the agent understand what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args/Returns structure is helpful, though the ctx parameter explanation is generic and could be more specific to this tool's context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain error conditions, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful update, leaving gaps for the agent to operate safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: assignment_id identifies the target, is_positive_outcome clarifies meaning for different task types, and message notes optionality. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Box task assignment') with specific actions ('mark it as complete or review outcome'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_task_assignment_details_tool (read-only) and box_task_assignment_remove_tool (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating task assignments with completion or review outcomes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like box_task_update_tool or box_task_complete_create_tool. It provides some context about task types (review vs. complete) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool can 'check the connection status,' which implies it might fail or return error states if not authenticated, adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what specific user information is returned (e.g., fields like name, email). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a useful secondary use case, and the third clarifies the return type. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy. However, the 'return:' line could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor room for improvement in flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and a secondary use, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format specifics. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive, aligning with a minimum viable score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, so it naturally compensates by focusing on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no additional parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current user's information.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', which also retrieve user information but with different scopes or parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage guidance: 'This is also useful to check the connection status.' This suggests a secondary use case for verifying authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like user lookup tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when status is changed to 'rejected'. The description mentions it returns 'updated collaboration details or an error message' but provides no specifics about response format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the Returns section could be more specific about what 'updated collaboration details' includes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, and response structure. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters with their purposes, defaults, and specific values. It explains role options, status values, and what each parameter controls. The only gap is lack of format details for expires_at (though datetime is implied) and deeper context about parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Update a specific collaboration's role') and resource ('collaboration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_collaboration_delete_tool or box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what aspect of the collaboration is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool or box_folder_set_collaboration_tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for updating collaborations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the lock prevents actions by others, which implies mutation and access control, but lacks details on permissions required, whether locks are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions the lock creator retains access, which is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear bullet points. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'optional' repeated in parameter descriptions), but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and mentions return values, but lacks behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need for return value explanation, but gaps remain in usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'file_id' identifies the file to lock, 'lock_expires_at' is an optional expiration in ISO 8601 format, and 'is_download_prevented' is an optional flag to block downloads. This covers all parameters beyond the schema's basic titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Define a lock') and resource ('on a file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'box_file_unlock_tool' by specifying it creates rather than removes locks. It explains what the lock prevents (moving, renaming, or changing by others).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 is provided. While it's clear this creates locks, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'box_file_unlock_tool' for removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'overrides role-based download permissions,' indicating a mutation that changes access settings, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns, making it efficient and easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (returns dict with updated file info), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the mutation purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but as a permission-changing tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like auth requirements or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond 'str'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Allow anyone with access to the file to download it') and specifies the resource ('file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning it 'overrides role-based download permissions,' suggesting it's for granting broader access, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the other download-setting tools in the sibling list. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limits, overwrite behavior, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and front-loaded the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the narrative flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema handles return values, but the description should address mutation implications and error cases more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: content type, file naming, and folder destination with default value. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could mention format constraints or ID validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Upload content as a file') and resource ('to Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_download_tool or box_file_copy_tool. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_file_copy_tool or box_folder_create_tool. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication, folder permissions) or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool copies a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, whether it preserves folder contents and metadata, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The return value description is minimal ('Dictionary containing the copied folder object or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args/Returns format is efficient. However, the description could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information instead of just the basic action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (copy operation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about permissions, behavior with existing folders, error conditions, and return format details. The parameter documentation helps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that modifies data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section: folder_id ('ID of the folder to copy'), destination_parent_folder_id ('ID of the destination parent folder'), and name ('New name for the copied folder. If not provided, original name is used'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like ID constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Copies a folder') and resource ('in Box'), and distinguishes it from siblings like box_folder_move_tool (copy vs move) and box_file_copy_tool (folder vs file). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the purpose distinguishes it from move operations, there's no mention of when copying is preferred over other folder operations, prerequisites, or limitations. The description assumes the agent knows when copying is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (adding an already-favorited folder), rate limits, or error conditions. The return statement mentions 'error message' but doesn't specify common failure scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the Args explain parameters, and Returns indicates output format. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations into a single paragraph.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation. It doesn't cover authentication requirements, error handling details, or what the 'updated folder object' contains. The absence of output schema increases the need for more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining that 'folder_id' is the 'ID of the folder to add to favorites.' With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema gap. The 'ctx' parameter is also documented as containing client context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Adds a folder') and resource ('to the user's favorites in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'box_folder_favorites_remove_tool' which performs the opposite operation. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), constraints (e.g., folder accessibility), or comparison with related tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' for checking favorite status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it's a search operation (not a mutation) and specifies exact matching behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if multiple users share the same name. The return format is vaguely described as 'a dictionary containing the user information if found, otherwise a message with no user found,' which is helpful but lacks detail on structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief clarification on exact matching. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose (e.g., mentioning 'ctx' which may be implicit). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavior but lacks depth. It covers the core operation and return indication, but doesn't address authentication, errors, or detailed output structure. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is 'The name of the user to locate' and that it's an exact match. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., full name, case sensitivity, encoding) or constraints beyond exact matching, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Locate a user by their name. This is an exact match search.' It specifies the verb ('locate'), resource ('user'), and search type ('exact match'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'exact match search,' suggesting this tool should be used when the exact name is known rather than for partial matches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether templates are globally available, what happens on duplicate names/keys, or any rate limits. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Example, Returns) and front-loads the purpose. The example is comprehensive but necessary given the complex fields parameter. While slightly longer due to the detailed example, every element serves a clear purpose in explaining the tool's usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but has gaps. It explains what the tool creates but doesn't describe the return value beyond 'dict: The created metadata template.' It also lacks behavioral context about permissions, error handling, and how this tool relates to other metadata operations in the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains all three parameters (display_name, fields, template_key), provides a comprehensive example showing field structure with multiple data types (string, date, enum, multiSelect), and clarifies optional behavior for template_key. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new metadata template definition') and resource ('in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool or box_metadata_template_list_tool. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions required, or compare it to related metadata template tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation ('Create a collaboration'), which implies mutation/write access. It mentions authentication requirements ('Authenticated Box client') and describes some behavioral aspects like role options and access-only effects. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or what permissions are required to create collaborations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently explains the tool's purpose and parameters. The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by organized parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding some redundancy in parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It covers the core operation and parameters but lacks information about error handling, required permissions, rate limits, and the structure of the returned dictionary. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial semantic value. It explains all 7 parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the role parameter's default value and available options, and clarifies optional parameters like is_access_only's effects. The only gap is that the schema includes 'can_view_path' parameter not mentioned in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a collaboration'), target resource ('on a folder'), and collaboration partner ('with a group specified by group ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling collaboration tools like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool by specifying it's for folders and groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple collaboration tools available (file vs folder, group vs user), there's no indication of when this folder-group collaboration tool is appropriate versus other collaboration methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a creation/mutation operation ('Create a collaboration'), but lacks details about permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the collaboration already exists. The return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is minimal but acknowledges potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args, Returns). The opening sentence efficiently states the core functionality. The Args section is comprehensive but necessary given the parameter count. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'user login (email)' could be more concise), but overall it's appropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like authentication requirements, error handling specifics, and collaboration lifecycle considerations. The return value description is minimal given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial value by explaining all parameters in the Args section. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter, provides the default value for 'role', lists available role options, and explains the effect of 'is_access_only'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a collaboration'), resource ('on a folder'), and key differentiator ('with a user specified by user login (email)'). It distinguishes this tool from similar sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool' by specifying the user identification method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it mentions the user identification method, it doesn't explain when to choose email-based collaboration over user ID-based collaboration or other collaboration methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates a collaboration and describes some parameter effects (e.g., is_access_only hides items from All Files list), but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a mutating operation. The return type is mentioned but not what success/failure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the description is moderately long (7 sentences). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, errors, and collaboration lifecycle. It mentions the return type but not what the dictionary contains. Given the complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail: file_id ('The ID of the file to collaborate on'), user_login ('The login (email) of the user'), role (default, available values), is_access_only (effect on visibility), expires_at (purpose), and notify (email notification). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a collaboration on a file with a user specified by user login (email)', which provides a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and distinguishes from siblings like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (which uses user ID instead of login) and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool (which targets folders instead of files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'user specified by user login'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with 'thumbnail URL or message if not available,' which hints at possible failure modes. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific conditions cause 'not available' (e.g., unsupported file formats, permissions). This partial disclosure is adequate but leaves gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Each sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core function, and parameter details are organized for quick parsing, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs and hinting at output behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., what 'message if not available' entails) and doesn't reference the output schema. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is mostly complete but could be slightly enhanced with more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by detailing all 6 parameters: 'file_id' (required), 'extension' (optional, with allowed values 'png' or 'jpg'), and min/max height/width (optional, with pixel ranges 32-320). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including defaults and constraints, making parameters well-understood.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the URL for a thumbnail image of a file.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('thumbnail image of a file'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_thumbnail_download_tool' (which downloads the thumbnail vs. getting a URL), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'box_file_thumbnail_download_tool' for downloading thumbnails directly) or contextual prerequisites like file types that support thumbnails. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 tool downloads files and optionally saves them locally, and describes different return behaviors for text files, images, and unsupported files. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limitations, or error handling beyond the unsupported file case.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameters well and describes return value variations. However, it lacks information about authentication, permissions, and error scenarios beyond unsupported files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: file_id identifies the file, save_file controls local saving, and save_path specifies where to save with fallback to temporary directory. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Download a file from Box') and resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_info_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It explicitly mentions the optional local saving functionality, which adds specificity beyond just downloading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_file_thumbnail_download_tool or box_file_text_extract_tool. The description mentions the optional save functionality but doesn't explain when to enable it versus just retrieving content directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating 'prevents duplicates,' which clarifies idempotent behavior not inferable from the name. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., invalid file_id), or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and key behavior, while the parameter and return documentation are essential for understanding. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action, parameters, and key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it could better address permissions or error handling to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents both parameters (file_id and tag) with brief semantics, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., tag length, allowed characters) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a tag to a file'), identifies the resource ('in Box'), and includes a distinctive behavioral detail ('prevents duplicates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_file_tag_remove_tool and box_file_tag_list_tool, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing file access permissions), compare it to similar tools like box_folder_tag_add_tool, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this creates a collaboration (a write/mutation operation), mentions email notification capability, and hints at access control effects through is_access_only. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The structure helps an agent quickly parse the tool's functionality and requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and indicates the return type, but doesn't describe error responses, required authentication level, or collaboration lifecycle implications. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. It documents all 6 parameters, explains their purposes, provides default values, enumerates available roles, and clarifies optional parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear to an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a collaboration on a file'), identifies the resource ('file'), and specifies the target ('with a user specified by user ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_login_tool by explicitly mentioning user ID identification rather than login credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., role options, is_access_only effects), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool. It provides some guidance through default values and optional parameters but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a creation/mutation operation and describes the return format (success with batch ID or error message), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and a helpful example. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the example could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (batch document generation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job. It explains parameters thoroughly, provides an example, and outlines return behavior. However, it lacks guidance on error handling specifics or integration with sibling tools like job listing tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters, including a detailed example for 'document_generation_data' that illustrates structure and usage. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though some nuances like data validation or constraints are not covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new Box Doc Gen batch'), the resource ('to generate documents from a template'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_create_single_file_from_user_input_tool' by emphasizing batch processing. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when generating multiple documents from a template in batch mode, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like the single-file sibling tool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear contextual boundaries are provided beyond the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the core behavior (setting/removing upload email) and the effect of parameter values (None removes, 'open' accepts any email), but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or error handling details. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters well, but lacks information about return values (beyond 'dictionary containing updated folder object or error message'), error conditions, and permission requirements. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that modifies system state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: folder_id's purpose, folder_upload_email_access's optional nature with clear semantics (None removes, 'open' vs 'collaborators' behavior). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Sets or removes the upload email address') on a specific resource ('for a folder in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_folder_set_description_tool or box_folder_set_sync_tool that modify different folder properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the parameter explanation (when to set vs. remove), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool for access control or provide prerequisites. It offers some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the exact match behavior and return format (dictionary with user info or message if not found), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific user information is returned, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear but includes unnecessary implementation detail ('ctx' parameter that agents don't use), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more detail about authentication needs, error handling, and the structure of returned user information to be fully complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description compensates well by clearly explaining that the 'email' parameter is 'The email address of the user to locate' and specifying it's an exact match search. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Locate a user') and resource ('by their email address'), with additional precision about the search type ('exact match search'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_users_locate_by_name_tool' and 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' by specifying the exact email-based lookup method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a user by their exact email address. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools that search by name or allow broader searches, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully reveals the critical irreversible nature of the operation ('cannot be shortened once set'), which is essential for a mutation tool. It also specifies the return format, though it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with the irreversible constraint front-loaded for maximum impact. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining parameters, specifying the irreversible nature, and documenting the return format. However, it doesn't mention required permissions, potential errors, or how this interacts with other file operations. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'file_id' is explained as 'The ID of the file to update' and 'retention_date' as 'The retention date for the file in ISO 8601 format'. This adds crucial semantic information beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set a retention date'), target resource ('for a file in Box'), and includes a critical behavioral constraint ('cannot be shortened once set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_retention_date_clear_tool' by specifying it's for setting rather than clearing retention dates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to set retention dates on Box files) and implicitly contrasts with the 'clear' sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like other file management tools, though the sibling list shows many unrelated tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns a single response (not batch), analyzes all files together for multiple inputs, provides unstructured results, and mentions flexibility vs. consistency trade-offs. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, use cases, and exclusions. While slightly verbose, every section adds value. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are redundant with the schema but help readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral traits. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata. However, it doesn't detail the response format beyond 'dict' or potential error cases, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, which it does excellently. It explains that 'file_ids' is 'a list of file IDs to extract information from' with an example, clarifies 'prompt' as 'the fields to extract' (though this could be more precise), and notes 'ai_agent_id' is optional with default behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract or analyze information from one or more files using a natural language prompt and return a SINGLE response.' It specifies the verb ('extract or analyze'), resource ('files'), and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'structured extraction tools' and mentioning sibling tools like box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use structured extraction tools... when you need consistent, machine-readable output' and 'NOT for batch processing... call this tool once per file in a loop.' It also lists specific use cases and contrasts with structured tools, giving clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: that it returns a single combined record from multiple files, uses advanced AI models for improved accuracy, handles complex layouts and low-quality scans, and is not for batch processing. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and efficiently organized: it starts with the core purpose, explains enhanced features, distinguishes from alternatives, provides use cases, and includes clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical details first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex AI extraction tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of output format details (only stating 'dict: The AI response containing the extracted information'), which would help the agent understand what to expect from the tool's response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides essential semantic context: file_ids are 'a list of file IDs to extract information from' with an example, and fields are 'the fields to extract from the files' defined as custom field definitions. While it doesn't detail the exact structure of the fields dictionary, it explains their purpose and relationship to the extraction process, significantly compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Extract structured data'), resource ('from one or more files'), and scope ('using custom fields and return a SINGLE data instance'). It explicitly distinguishes this as an 'Enhanced version' and differentiates from template-based extraction and batch processing, making it distinct from sibling tools like box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool and box_ai_extract_structured_enhanced_using_template_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for ad-hoc data extraction or when you need fields that don't match any existing template'), when NOT to use it ('NOT for batch processing'), and clear alternatives ('call this tool once per file in a loop' for batch processing). It also distinguishes from template-based extraction methods mentioned in sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing key behavioral traits: that it returns a SINGLE metadata instance even with multiple files, uses advanced AI models (Gemini), handles complex layouts and low-quality scans, and combines information from all files. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then details enhanced features, use cases, exclusions, and finally parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value - no fluff or repetition. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job. It explains the tool's behavior, use cases, limitations, and parameters. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format beyond 'dict: The extracted structured data in a json string format' - more detail about the structure of the returned data would be helpful given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds significant value beyond the bare schema. It explains that 'file_ids' are 'IDs of the files to read' and provides concrete examples of what files might contain. For 'template_key', it gives an example ('insurance_policy_template') and explains it's 'the key of the metadata template to use for the extraction.' This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files and return a SINGLE metadata instance (Enhanced version).' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('structured data from files'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's an 'enhanced version' and explicitly contrasting with batch processing. The description differentiates from sibling tools like 'box_ai_extract_structured_using_template_tool' by emphasizing enhanced AI models and multi-file consolidation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It states 'Use cases' with examples for single and multiple files, and crucially includes a 'NOT for batch processing' section that explicitly tells when NOT to use it ('If you need to extract metadata from multiple files as separate instances, call this tool once per file in a loop'). This gives clear alternatives and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: that it analyzes files, combines information from multiple files into one record, returns data in JSON string format, and has specific limitations (single instance output, not for batch processing). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral explanation, use cases, exclusions, and parameter documentation. While the example is lengthy, it's necessary for understanding the complex fields parameter. The core information is front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place by adding specific value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (AI-powered extraction with custom fields), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context. It explains the tool's behavior, use cases, limitations, and parameters thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'json string format' - more specifics about the structure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so excellently. It explains all three parameters: file_ids ('IDs of the files to read'), fields ('fields to extract from the files') with a comprehensive example showing structure and options, and ai_agent_id ('ID of the AI agent to use for processing'). The example is particularly valuable for understanding the complex fields parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files using custom fields and return a SINGLE data instance.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('structured data from files'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like template-based extraction tools and batch processing alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It states 'Unlike template-based extraction...' for on-the-fly field definitions, gives use cases for single and multiple files, and explicitly says 'NOT for batch processing' with an alternative approach ('call this tool once per file in a loop').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (extracts data), combines information from multiple files into one record, and specifies the output format ('json string format'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling, which could be useful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the second explains multi-file handling, use cases provide concrete examples, and exclusions prevent misuse. There's no redundant or verbose content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (AI-based extraction with multiple files and templates) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and output format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if extraction fails, which are relevant for an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all parameters: 'file_ids' is explained as 'The IDs of the files to read' with examples, 'template_key' as 'The ID of the template to use for extraction,' and 'ai_agent_id' as optional for 'The ID of the AI agent to use for processing.' This clarifies purpose beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., template structure).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files and return a SINGLE metadata instance.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('files'), and output ('single metadata instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings like batch processing tools by explicitly stating 'NOT for batch processing.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It includes use cases (single file, multiple files) and explicitly states when not to use it ('NOT for batch processing'), with a clear alternative: 'call this tool once per file in a loop.' This helps the agent choose correctly among extraction-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-box MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/box-community/mcp-server-box/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/box-community/mcp-server-box)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-box MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/box-community/mcp-server-box/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/box-community/mcp-server-box)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/box-community/mcp-server-box'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server