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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the creation behavior and the return of an id, which is helpful. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, it doesn't mention permission requirements, idempotency (what happens if the folder already exists), or any failure modes.

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 extremely compact: one sentence stating purpose and return, followed by structured param docs. Every line earns its place and the key info (return id) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain the return structure, only that an id is returned, which it does. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, missing details like idempotency or required permissions leave gaps in a caller's understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters semantically: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_id' with explicit behavior when omitted. This is useful, but it doesn't add type/format constraints beyond the schema, so it's adequate but not rich.

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?

States a precise verb + resource ('Create a folder') and adds the return value ('return its id'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mybox_upload or mybox_list, which operate on files or read state.

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 parent_id guidance ('Omit to create it at the drive root') implies default behavior, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any reference to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the skip/idempotency rule for an existing same-name-same-size file, and a per-day quota that is small on entry plans. It stops short of describing what happens when a same-name file differs in size (overwrite vs. error) or any auth/prerequisite requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose and return value front-loaded, followed by the operational caution. Minimal waste, though restating the returned path is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a simple two-parameter download with an output schema, the core behavior (skip logic, quota) is covered and return values need not be described. Still, with zero parameter descriptions and no annotations, edge-case behaviors (existing-file conflict with different size, dest_dir preconditions, auth) are left unaddressed.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at dest_dir via 'into a local directory' and says nothing about resource_id format, nor whether dest_dir must already exist. The gap is not filled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download one file into a local directory') plus the side effect ('return the path written'). This is precise enough to separate it from mybox_upload, mybox_list, and mybox_search without opening any schema.

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?

Offers a real usage caution ('Download quotas are per day and small on entry plans, so avoid re-downloading'), which implicitly tells the agent not to call it needlessly. However, it never names an alternative tool or a condition for preferring mybox_file_info/mybox_search instead, so routing guidance is only implied.

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

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 only that attributes are fetched, without covering permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though the output schema covers return values.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action, target, and lookup key.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. However, it lacks usage context and parameter detail, which are gaps given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It says 'by id', which loosely maps to resource_id, but provides no format, constraints, or clarification beyond the schema title 'Resource Id'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'attributes of one file or folder', making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by specifying a single resource identified by id, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for retrieving metadata by id rather than listing, searching, or downloading.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the API pages internally at 1000 entries per page and that count is an upper bound, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It says nothing about ordering guarantees, error behavior, or whether a missing folder_id path is valid, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is a tight, scannable mapping of each parameter. No filler, though the header sentence and Args list could be even more compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. All three parameters are covered, defaults and the drive-root case are addressed, and the pagination caveat is stated — the agent has enough to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains folder_id's null/omitted meaning, count's paging semantics above the schema default of 100, and enumerates the valid sort fields. It omits the allowed direction values (e.g. asc/desc) even though the schema default is 'modifiedAt,desc'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List files and folders') and pins the scope precisely ('directly inside a folder, or the drive root'), which implicitly separates it from a recursive search. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary with mybox_search or mybox_file_info.

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?

'Omit for the drive root' gives one concrete usage rule for the default case. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over mybox_search (recursive) or mybox_file_info (single-item metadata), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail (KST interpretation, AND-combining semantics), but omits permission requirements, pagination/truncation behavior beyond max_items, and any statement about result ordering or safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a structured Args block. Dense and largely waste-free, though the per-parameter list is somewhat chatty given the schema titles.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the constraint, all parameters, and date semantics. The main omission is routing relative to sibling tools like mybox_list.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains all seven params, including the KST timezone on dates, AND semantics on query, and created/modified selection. Minor gaps remain (category enum is left as 'etc.', max_items default not restated).

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (files) plus the three filter dimensions (keyword, category, date range). Clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the potentially overlapping mybox_list tool.

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?

'At least one is required' gives a real calling constraint, so usage is implied rather than absent. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over mybox_list or mybox_file_info, and no exclusions stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the description states what data comes back, which is useful, but it says nothing about required permissions or authentication for the account.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing exactly the returned quantities with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a no-argument read-only stats tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that safety/permission context is absent, which matters slightly because no annotations exist.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for, and the schema is trivially complete.

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?

Clear verb 'Report' with a specific resource (MYBOX quota/usage) and it enumerates what is returned: quota, used bytes, per-category counts, max upload size. It is obviously distinct from action siblings like mybox_upload or mybox_search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer on its own that this is the tool to call before an upload to learn limits, even though max upload size is highly relevant to mybox_upload.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the default keeps both files on a name collision unless overwrite is set — but says nothing about permissions, size limits, or failure modes for an upload mutation.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before a compact Args list, with no filler. Slightly formulaic but every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral or permission context for a write operation with no annotations, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: path as the local file, parent_id as destination folder with root as the default, and overwrite's collision behavior. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it omits format details (e.g., what a valid folder id looks like).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload one local file to MYBOX') with a useful cardinality constraint ('one local file'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mybox_download and mybox_create_folder by the action itself, though no sibling is named.

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?

Gives partial usage context — omit parent_id to target the drive root, and overwrite to replace a same-named file — which implies when each parameter applies. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., vs mybox_create_folder) or prerequisites.

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