List Box events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that events are 'recent' and cover 'lifecycle and work' categories, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not rich given the annotations cover the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

With 5 parameters (including a required box_id), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too terse to be complete. It omits how to obtain a box_id, what sort/cursor/limit do, and how to interpret the event types. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves too many operational details 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 only 20% (only 'type' is described). The description text adds no meaning for parameters like box_id, sort, limit, or cursor. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 clear verb 'Inspect' and specifies the resource as 'recent lifecycle and work events emitted by a Box', which tells the agent what the tool does. It is distinct from siblings like box_list (which lists boxes) and box_get (which gets box details), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid box_id), or filtering/pagination strategies. It simply states what the tool does without context on appropriate usage.

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