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 is a 'Get' operation but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no shared link exists (error vs. null response), rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of returning 'shared link details' is vague about format. 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 appropriately brief with a clear first sentence stating the purpose. However, the Args/Returns sections are redundant with the schema (though schema has 0% coverage) and add technical implementation details (Context object, dict return) that don't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. The structure is front-loaded but includes unnecessary boilerplate.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'shared link details' include, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of shared link management and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more operational context.

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 only mentions 'folder_id' generically without explaining what constitutes a valid folder ID format, where to find it, or examples. It doesn't address the 'ctx' parameter at all. With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond naming the parameter.

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 'Get' and resource 'shared link for a folder', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool and box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool by focusing on retrieval rather than creation/modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with box_shared_link_folder_find_by_shared_link_url_tool, which appears to be a different lookup method.

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., whether the folder must already have a shared link), compare with box_shared_link_folder_find_by_shared_link_url_tool, or indicate scenarios where this is appropriate versus creating a new shared link. 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.