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 it's a list operation (implies read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all groups' entails (e.g., includes nested groups?). For a tool with no annotations, 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., 'ctx' is generic and adds little value). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. It's adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps that could hinder effective 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 adds minimal semantics: it explains that 'user_id' is 'The ID of the user whose groups are to be listed.' The input schema has 0% description coverage, so this is helpful but basic. It doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully.

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 all groups that a specific user belongs to.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'box_groups_list_members_tool' (which lists members of a group) and 'box_groups_search_tool' (which searches groups). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies a user-centric focus.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid user ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_groups_search_tool'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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