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 mentions returning 'The response from the Box API with the task details,' which hints at a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. 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 sized with three clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and no wasted sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in args is unnecessary clutter since it's not a user-facing parameter.

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 coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, response structure, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem like Box with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 'Args: task_id (str): The ID of the task to retrieve details for,' which adds meaning by explaining the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID), examples, or validation rules, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states 'Get details of a Box task' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (Box task). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_assignment_details_tool' or 'box_task_assignments_list_tool', leaving ambiguity about what specific 'details' are retrieved versus other task-related operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple task-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., box_task_assignments_list_tool, box_task_update_tool), the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to help the agent choose appropriately.

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