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 mentions the tool can 'check the connection status,' which implies it might fail or return error states if not authenticated, adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what specific user information is returned (e.g., fields like name, email). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a useful secondary use case, and the third clarifies the return type. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy. However, the 'return:' line could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor room for improvement in flow.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and a secondary use, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format specifics. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, so it naturally compensates by focusing on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no additional parameter information is required.

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 the current user's information.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', which also retrieve user information but with different scopes or parameters.

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 some implied usage guidance: 'This is also useful to check the connection status.' This suggests a secondary use case for verifying authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like user lookup tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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