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 lists jobs 'for the current user', which implies authentication is needed, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond mentioning parameters, or what happens if no jobs exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter and return documentation. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description rather than a separate Args section.

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 read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks important behavioral context like authentication requirements, error conditions, and pagination mechanics that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 2 parameters (marker, limit) with basic types and purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., limit ranges) or marker format details.

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 resource ('all Box Doc Gen jobs for the current user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool', which prevents 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 multiple sibling tools related to Doc Gen jobs (e.g., 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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