MCP Server Box

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'locates' a folder, implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't specify if it returns multiple matches, handles partial names, or has any rate limits or permissions required. The return type 'List[dict]: The folder ID' is confusing and incomplete, adding little clarity. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'return' sections. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'return' section is ambiguous ('List[dict]: The folder ID'), which slightly reduces clarity, but overall it's efficient.

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 has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like search scope, error handling, or how results are formatted. For a search tool with one parameter, this minimal description fails to provide enough context for reliable 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'folder_name' as a string, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints like length, allowed characters, or case sensitivity, which could be important for accurate usage. This provides basic but insufficient detail.

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: 'Locate a folder in Box by its name.' It specifies the verb ('locate') and resource ('folder in Box'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_search_tool' or 'box_folder_info_tool', which might also help find folders, so it's not fully distinct.

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, such as whether the folder must be accessible or if authentication is needed, nor does it compare to other search or folder-related tools in the sibling list. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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