Open Box desktop

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

Adds crucial behavioral context that the URL is secret-bearing and must not be logged, persisted, or shared, which is not visible in annotations. It does not contradict readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint, but lacks details on URL lifetime or revocation.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second an essential security directive. No wasted words and information 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?

The description covers the core action and a key safety caveat, but omits output format, URL validity period, and whether a desktop session is started. While annotations help, the openWorldHint suggests side effects not explained.

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 description provides no parameter-level detail. Schema covers public_access but not box_id semantics; with 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving box_id only inferable from context.

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 ('Create') and resource ('desktop streaming URL'), with a clear purpose ('for the user to inspect the Box'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_get or box_execute_command.

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?

It implies a clear use case: when a user needs to visually inspect the Box. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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