List Box environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific detail about returning lifecycle states, which is useful, but does not elaborate on pagination, sorting, or other behavioral aspects.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description mentions the key output (lifecycle states) but does not address pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior despite the presence of limit/cursor/sort parameters and no output schema. It is adequate for a simple read-only list but leaves gaps for a user unfamiliar with the tool.

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 only 25% (only 'state' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like 'cursor' and 'limit' are left entirely to the schema structure, which lacks semantic meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('user's Box environments') while adding the scope of inspecting 'current lifecycle states'. This distinguishes it from siblings like box_list_events (events) and box_get (specific environment).

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 usage is implied: use it to find environments and their lifecycle states. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like box_get or box_list_events, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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