MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool lists tasks and returns a Box API response, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it paginates results, what error conditions exist, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and no wasted words. However, the 'ctx' parameter documentation in the Args section is unnecessary for an AI agent since it's an internal implementation detail, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the complexity (API interaction with Box tasks), zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' means in Box context, what information the response contains, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that interacts with external APIs, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'file_id (str): The ID of the file to list tasks for,' which essentially restates what's in the schema (a required string parameter called file_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining where to find file IDs, format requirements, or validation rules. The baseline of 3 reflects that the schema already documents the parameter's existence and type.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all tasks associated with a Box file.' This includes a specific verb ('List'), resource ('tasks'), and scope ('associated with a Box file'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling task-related tools like box_task_details_tool or box_task_assignments_list_tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple task-related tools in the sibling list (box_task_details_tool, box_task_assignments_list_tool, box_task_assignment_details_tool, etc.), there's no indication of when this file-specific task listing tool is appropriate versus other task tools that might work on tasks directly or assignments.

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