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 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated, what format the member list takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The Args/Returns sections are helpful but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it should provide more context about when to use it, what the return format looks like, and any behavioral constraints. It's minimally adequate but leaves 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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'group_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the group whose members are to be listed'), which adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find group IDs or provide format examples.

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 ('List') and resource ('all members of a specific group'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' or 'box_users_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other group-related tools like 'box_groups_list_by_user_tool' and 'box_groups_search_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other approaches.

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