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 list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or affects system state. The description mentions returning 'The response from the Box API' but doesn't describe format, pagination, or error behavior. For a tool 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 concise with three sentences: purpose statement, args explanation, and returns statement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections add necessary structure without redundancy. However, the ctx parameter documentation ('The context object...') is boilerplate that doesn't aid the AI agent and could be omitted for better conciseness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks critical context: authentication requirements, error handling, response format details, pagination, rate limits, and comparison to sibling tools. For a tool interacting with an external API (Box), this leaves the agent under-informed about operational constraints.

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 descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: it explains that task_id is 'The ID of the task to list assignments for,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation rules, or where to obtain the ID. With 1 parameter and partial clarification, this meets the baseline for minimal value addition.

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 ('List') and resource ('assignments associated with a Box task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_task_details_tool or box_task_assignment_details_tool by focusing on listing all assignments rather than task details or single assignment details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings in the extensive list.

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 a valid task_id), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like box_task_assignment_details_tool (for single assignments) or box_task_file_list_tool (for task files). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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