MCP Server Box

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.