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. It states the action 'List all users' but does not mention critical details such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned dictionary. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, but the subsequent lines about 'Args' and 'Returns' add minimal value and could be considered clutter. While not overly verbose, these extra details do not earn their place, 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 of listing users (which may involve pagination, permissions, or data limits) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned dictionary contains, how results are formatted, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly notes no arguments beyond the context object, which is appropriate. However, it includes unnecessary details about 'ctx (Context)' and 'Returns: dict', which are redundant given the schema and lack of output schema, but this does not detract significantly from the score.

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 the resource 'all users in the Box account', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling user-related tools like 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool' or 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool', which could cause confusion about when to use this broad listing versus more targeted searches.

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 sibling tools for locating users by email or name, and searching by name or email, there is no indication that this tool is for retrieving all users without filtering, while others are for specific queries. This omission could lead to inefficient or incorrect tool selection.

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