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. While it mentions pagination parameters (marker, limit) and the return type, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no jobs are found. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections makes it easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (DocGenJobsV2025R0), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and pagination behavior to be complete.

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 provides a parameter list with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that 'template_id' is for a specific template, 'marker' is for pagination, and 'limit' controls max items per page. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., template ID format, limit range).

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 that used a specific template.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and scope ('that used a specific template'). It distinguishes from general job listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_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. There are multiple job-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool', 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool'), but the description doesn't indicate when this template-filtered listing is preferred over other listing methods.

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