MCP Server Box

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.