box_docgen_template_list_tags_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions pagination parameters ('marker', 'limit') and error handling in returns, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-safe understanding.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly verbose. Every part adds value, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return types but lacks behavioral context like error conditions or pagination behavior. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable gaps.

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 explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section, including optionality and basic semantics. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure, limit ranges) or deeper meaning beyond naming, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 tags for a Box Doc Gen template'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' or 'box_file_tag_list_tool', which list tags for different resource types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client) or compare it to other tag-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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