box_file_text_extract_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (markdown or plain text) and preference for markdown, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, file size constraints, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by details on output format and parameters. The structure with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections is organized, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise. There's minimal redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (text extraction from files), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool effectively compared to siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' as 'The ID of the file to extract text from', adding essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format or source of the file ID, which could be helpful given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'extract' and resource 'text from a file in Box', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_ai_extract_freeform_tool' or 'box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool', which also involve extraction but with different focuses or methods.

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 minimal guidance, mentioning that markdown is preferred if available, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'box_ai_extract_freeform_tool' or 'box_file_download_tool'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as file accessibility or permissions, and doesn't specify exclusions or typical use cases.

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