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 'Get information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., metadata, permissions, content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return type. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. The structured 'Args' and 'return' sections help readability, though the return type 'dict[str, Any]' is somewhat vague.

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 (which should document the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to compensate—such as clarifying what 'information' includes or noting common use cases. It's minimally adequate but has clear 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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find file IDs or provide examples, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 'Get information' and the resource 'about a file in Box', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' or 'box_file_download_tool', which would require more precise language about what type of information is retrieved.

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 many sibling tools available (like box_file_download_tool, box_file_tag_list_tool, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves basic metadata, comprehensive file details, or something else, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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