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. It mentions 'optional recursive traversal' and 'Maximum items per API call,' which adds some context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the folder doesn't exist, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, and the 'Returns' part is vague ('Dictionary containing folder items list or error message'), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on authentication, error handling, output structure, and sibling differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on behavioral aspects and return values would enhance completeness for effective agent use.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters (folder_id, is_recursive, limit) with types and defaults, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain parameter semantics deeply, such as what 'folder_id' format is expected (e.g., numeric ID), what 'recursive' entails in practice, or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. This provides basic compensation but falls short of full clarity.

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 items in a Box folder with optional recursive traversal.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('items in a Box folder'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' or 'box_search_folder_by_name_tool', which might also retrieve folder-related information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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. It mentions 'optional recursive traversal' but doesn't explain scenarios where recursion is beneficial or when other tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' might be more appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as authentication or folder access permissions, leaving usage context unclear.

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