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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects. It mentions pagination via 'marker' and 'limit', but doesn't describe how pagination works (e.g., default limits, marker usage). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into a single flowing paragraph rather than separate sections.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters and the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits), and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. The output schema handles return values, so that aspect is covered.

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 all 3 parameters (batch_id, marker, limit), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'batch_id' is required and identifies 'marker' and 'limit' as optional for pagination. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints for 'batch_id' or typical values for 'limit', leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'List Doc Gen jobs in a specific batch.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which likely lists all jobs) by specifying 'in a specific batch.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' (which might list template-related jobs), leaving some ambiguity.

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 when to prefer this over 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which might list all jobs without batch filtering) or 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool' (for single job details). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing batch ID from 'box_docgen_create_batch_tool'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.