mybox_search

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.