box_shared_link_web_link_get_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'shared link details' include. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API like Box.

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 with three sentences: purpose, parameters, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections use a code-like format that's slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, response structure, and how this tool fits among siblings. For a Box API tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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. It documents the single parameter 'web_link_id' and its purpose ('ID of the web link to get the shared link for'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., Box-specific ID patterns) or provide examples.

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 'Get' and resource 'shared link for a web link', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool', which would require mentioning this is for retrieval only.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing web link), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'box_shared_link_web_link_find_by_shared_link_url_tool' or 'box_web_link_get_by_id_tool', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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