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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.