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. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the template doesn't exist), or whether this operation has side effects. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the inclusion of 'ctx' in Args might be considered implementation detail rather than user-facing documentation.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While it states the basic purpose and parameter, it lacks crucial context about authentication, error conditions, return format details, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about many behavioral aspects when using this tool.

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 adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('template_name: The name of the metadata template to retrieve'), which clarifies what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding how to properly specify template names.

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: 'Retrieve a metadata template by its name.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('metadata template'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' or 'box_metadata_template_list_tool', which appear to retrieve templates by different identifiers or list multiple templates.

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 sibling tools like 'box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool' and 'box_metadata_template_list_tool' available, the agent receives no indication about when name-based retrieval is appropriate versus key-based retrieval or listing all templates. There's also no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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