MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves web link details but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool interacting with an external API.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'ctx' parameter explanation is generic and could be more specific to Box context.

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 a Box API tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format specifics, and how it differs from similar tools, making it incomplete for effective agent 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'web_link_id' parameter as 'The ID of the web link to retrieve,' adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain the ID format (e.g., numeric string) or provide examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'Get a Box web link by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Box web link'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool' or 'box_web_link_create_tool', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool' for shared links or 'box_web_link_create_tool' for creation) or specify prerequisites like authentication. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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