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 retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements (though 'client' parameter hints at it), rate limits, error conditions beyond 'error message', or what happens if the template_id doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured and appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, Args, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place. The purpose statement is front-loaded. Minor improvement could be merging the purpose and Args sections more seamlessly.

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 simple retrieval tool with 1 parameter and output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool ('box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool') that serves nearly identical purpose, it should better differentiate usage context. The output schema existence reduces need to detail return values, but more behavioral context would help.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'client (BoxClient): Authenticated Box client' and 'template_id (str): ID of the template.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details for template_id (UUID, numeric, etc.) or explain where to find template IDs, leaving some 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 tool's purpose with 'Retrieve details of a specific Box Doc Gen template' - a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Box Doc Gen template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' by specifying retrieval of a single template by ID rather than listing multiple templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' which serves a similar purpose with different identification method.

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 choose this over 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' (when you have ID vs name) or 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' (when you need a specific template vs browsing). The only usage context is implied through the parameter requirement for template_id.

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