MCP Server Box

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.