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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.