MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and unhelpful for an agent.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but include unnecessary details (e.g., 'ctx' parameter not in the schema, vague return description). Overall, it's efficient with minor waste.

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 lacks crucial context: behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), parameter semantics, and output specifics. The mention of a 'dict' return is insufficient for an agent to understand the response structure.

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 only names the parameter ('assignment_id') without explaining its format, source, or constraints (e.g., where to obtain it, if it's a UUID). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 details') and resource ('Box task assignment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_task_assignments_list_tool' (which lists assignments) and 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' (which modifies assignments). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_task_details_tool', which might retrieve task-level details rather than assignment-level details.

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 an assignment ID from another tool like 'box_task_assignments_list_tool'), nor does it clarify distinctions from similar tools (e.g., 'box_task_details_tool' for task-level details). Usage is implied only by the parameter name 'assignment_id'.

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