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 states the action ('Retrieve') and return type ('dict'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args section includes 'ctx' which is typically implicit in tool calls and could be considered minor clutter. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter name but misses critical context like error conditions, authentication needs, return structure details, or how this tool fits among metadata template siblings. For a retrieval tool in a complex system, more guidance is needed.

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 description must compensate. It adds minimal value by naming the parameter ('template_key') and indicating it's a string key for retrieval, but doesn't explain format constraints, examples, or where to find valid keys. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic semantics but insufficient detail for confident use.

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') and resource ('metadata template') with a specific identifier ('by its key'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_metadata_template_get_by_name_tool' and 'box_metadata_template_list_tool' by specifying the key-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 when to choose it over 'box_metadata_template_get_by_name_tool' or 'box_metadata_template_list_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or access rights. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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