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. It states this retrieves an existing shared link but doesn't clarify what happens if no link exists (returns null/error?), whether this requires specific permissions, or rate limits. The mention of 'The response from the Box API' is vague about format or potential errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, documenting the parameter, and indicating the response type. However, the 'ctx (Context)' parameter documentation is unnecessary boilerplate that doesn't help the AI agent.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what the response contains (beyond 'shared link details'), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this differs from similar shared link tools. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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%, but the description includes an Args section explaining 'file_id (str): The ID of the file to get the shared link for.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'File Id' title. However, it doesn't explain where to find file IDs, format requirements, or validation rules. With only one parameter, the description provides basic but incomplete semantic information.

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 action ('Get a shared link') and resource ('for a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_shared_link_file_create_or_update_tool' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' which also retrieves shared links but via URL rather than file ID.

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 file access permissions), when to choose this over 'box_shared_link_file_find_by_shared_link_url_tool', or what happens if no shared link exists. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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