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. While 'Retrieve information' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably interacts with an external API.

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 brief with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds minimal value since it's not part of the user-facing schema.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about what information is retrieved and any constraints. The return value description ('Dictionary containing folder information or error message') is vague.

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 'folder_id' with its type and purpose. This compensates somewhat for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond what's minimally necessary.

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 ('Retrieve information') and resource ('specific folder in Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'box_file_info_tool' or 'box_folder_items_list_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other folder-related tools like box_folder_items_list_tool), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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