MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary with thumbnail image content in base64 or error message'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential behavioral complexities.

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, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still cover operational aspects more thoroughly given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by detailing all six parameters with clear semantics: 'file_id' as the file ID, 'extension' with allowed values ('png' or 'jpg') and default, and dimension parameters with pixel ranges (32-320). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.

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 ('Download') and resource ('thumbnail image of a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' by focusing on downloading the actual image rather than generating a URL, though this distinction could be more explicit.

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, such as 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' for URL generation or 'box_file_download_tool' for full file downloads. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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