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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 concise with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and return value. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more efficient by integrating the Args/Returns into a single paragraph, but overall it's well-structured without waste.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context: what information is returned, error handling, authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'ai_agent_id' with its type and purpose. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing basic parameter documentation. It doesn't add rich semantics like format examples, constraints, or where to find agent IDs, but it meets the baseline for having parameter information when schema coverage is low.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about a specific AI agent by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('AI agent'), but doesn't distinguish it from its sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool' beyond the 'by ID' qualifier. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' and 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', there's no indication of when to retrieve a specific agent by ID versus listing or searching. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it returns a dictionary containing a list, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what fields are included in the returned data.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences, but the structure could be improved. The first sentence states the purpose, but the Args/Returns formatting is more technical documentation than helpful natural language for an AI agent. The information is front-loaded but not optimally structured.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned dictionary contains, how to interpret results, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. For a list operation with sibling alternatives, more context is needed.

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 mentions the 'limit' parameter and its default value of 1000, which adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters (1 of 2 total) without semantic context in the description.

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 'List' and the resource 'available AI agents in Box', which makes the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' or 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_search_by_name_tool' and 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' available, there's no indication whether this tool lists all agents, filtered agents, or serves a different purpose than the search tool.

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

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 search operation but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it's read-only, how results are returned (format, pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of 'ctx (Context)' parameter is technical implementation detail not helpful for an AI agent.

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 reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the Args/Returns formatting is more technical documentation than agent guidance. The 'ctx (Context)' parameter explanation is unnecessary for an AI agent's understanding. The description could be more front-loaded with practical usage information.

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?

For a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return dictionary contains, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when no matches are found. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 mentions parameters in the Args section but adds minimal semantic value: 'name (str): The name filter to search for AI agents' and 'limit (Optional[int]): Maximum number of items to return. Defaults to 1000.' This doesn't explain search behavior (exact match, partial, case-sensitivity), format expectations, or practical constraints beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for AI agents in Box by name.' This specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('AI agents in Box'), and filtering method ('by name'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' or 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool'.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_ai_agents_list_tool' (which might list all agents) or 'box_ai_agent_info_by_id_tool' (which retrieves specific agents by ID). There's no context about when name-based search is preferred over other methods.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions AI processing and returns a dict with answers per file, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or how the AI processes multiple files (e.g., sequentially or in parallel).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's relatively concise, but the Args section could be more streamlined (e.g., merging example into the parameter description). No wasted sentences, but minor verbosity in formatting.

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?

For a 3-parameter AI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (costs, limits, auth), output structure details beyond 'dict', and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.

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 provides basic semantics for all three parameters: file_ids as a list of IDs with an example, prompt as the question, and ai_agent_id as optional with default behavior. However, it lacks details on ID formats, prompt constraints, or agent ID sourcing, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about multiple files using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('multiple files'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' beyond the 'multiple' vs implied 'single' distinction.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'box_ai_ask_file_single_tool' or other AI tools like 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions AI usage and optional agent selection, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though some sentences (like the Args list) are functional rather than explanatory.

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 complexity (AI interaction with files), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address key contextual aspects such as response structure, error cases, or integration with sibling AI tools, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The ID of the file to ask about'), but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema titles imply. For example, it does not explain file ID format constraints or prompt best practices, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about a file using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('file'), and method ('using AI'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool' or 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool', which limits differentiation.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool' (for multiple files) or 'box_ai_ask_hub_tool' (for hubs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an AI agent processes the question and returns a response, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For an AI query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'ctx' parameter explanation is vague ('The context object containing the request and lifespan context'), which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't cover response structure, error cases, or operational constraints. For an AI tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 provides clear explanations for all three parameters: hub_id (ID of the hub), prompt (the question), and ai_agent_id (optional AI agent ID with default behavior). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format examples beyond '1234567890' for hub_id.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ask a question about a hub using AI.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('hub'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_ai_ask_file_multi_tool or box_ai_ask_file_single_tool, which ask questions about files rather than hubs.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to other AI question tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it returns a single response (not batch), analyzes all files together for multiple inputs, provides unstructured results, and mentions flexibility vs. consistency trade-offs. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, use cases, and exclusions. While slightly verbose, every section adds value. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are redundant with the schema but help readability.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral traits. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata. However, it doesn't detail the response format beyond 'dict' or potential error cases, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, which it does excellently. It explains that 'file_ids' is 'a list of file IDs to extract information from' with an example, clarifies 'prompt' as 'the fields to extract' (though this could be more precise), and notes 'ai_agent_id' is optional with default behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Extract or analyze information from one or more files using a natural language prompt and return a SINGLE response.' It specifies the verb ('extract or analyze'), resource ('files'), and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'structured extraction tools' and mentioning sibling tools like box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use structured extraction tools... when you need consistent, machine-readable output' and 'NOT for batch processing... call this tool once per file in a loop.' It also lists specific use cases and contrasts with structured tools, giving clear context for selection.

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

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: that it returns a single combined record from multiple files, uses advanced AI models for improved accuracy, handles complex layouts and low-quality scans, and is not for batch processing. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized: it starts with the core purpose, explains enhanced features, distinguishes from alternatives, provides use cases, and includes clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical details first.

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?

For a complex AI extraction tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of output format details (only stating 'dict: The AI response containing the extracted information'), which would help the agent understand what to expect from the tool's response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides essential semantic context: file_ids are 'a list of file IDs to extract information from' with an example, and fields are 'the fields to extract from the files' defined as custom field definitions. While it doesn't detail the exact structure of the fields dictionary, it explains their purpose and relationship to the extraction process, significantly compensating for the schema gap.

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 specific action ('Extract structured data'), resource ('from one or more files'), and scope ('using custom fields and return a SINGLE data instance'). It explicitly distinguishes this as an 'Enhanced version' and differentiates from template-based extraction and batch processing, making it distinct from sibling tools like box_ai_extract_structured_using_fields_tool and box_ai_extract_structured_enhanced_using_template_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for ad-hoc data extraction or when you need fields that don't match any existing template'), when NOT to use it ('NOT for batch processing'), and clear alternatives ('call this tool once per file in a loop' for batch processing). It also distinguishes from template-based extraction methods mentioned in sibling tools.

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

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 does well by describing key behavioral traits: that it returns a SINGLE metadata instance even with multiple files, uses advanced AI models (Gemini), handles complex layouts and low-quality scans, and combines information from all files. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then details enhanced features, use cases, exclusions, and finally parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value - no fluff or repetition. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

For a complex extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job. It explains the tool's behavior, use cases, limitations, and parameters. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format beyond 'dict: The extracted structured data in a json string format' - more detail about the structure of the returned data would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds significant value beyond the bare schema. It explains that 'file_ids' are 'IDs of the files to read' and provides concrete examples of what files might contain. For 'template_key', it gives an example ('insurance_policy_template') and explains it's 'the key of the metadata template to use for the extraction.' This compensates well for 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 tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files and return a SINGLE metadata instance (Enhanced version).' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('structured data from files'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's an 'enhanced version' and explicitly contrasting with batch processing. The description differentiates from sibling tools like 'box_ai_extract_structured_using_template_tool' by emphasizing enhanced AI models and multi-file consolidation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It states 'Use cases' with examples for single and multiple files, and crucially includes a 'NOT for batch processing' section that explicitly tells when NOT to use it ('If you need to extract metadata from multiple files as separate instances, call this tool once per file in a loop'). This gives clear alternatives and exclusions.

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

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 effectively describes key behaviors: that it analyzes files, combines information from multiple files into one record, returns data in JSON string format, and has specific limitations (single instance output, not for batch processing). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral explanation, use cases, exclusions, and parameter documentation. While the example is lengthy, it's necessary for understanding the complex fields parameter. The core information is front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place by adding specific value.

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 complexity (AI-powered extraction with custom fields), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context. It explains the tool's behavior, use cases, limitations, and parameters thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'json string format' - more specifics about the structure would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so excellently. It explains all three parameters: file_ids ('IDs of the files to read'), fields ('fields to extract from the files') with a comprehensive example showing structure and options, and ai_agent_id ('ID of the AI agent to use for processing'). The example is particularly valuable for understanding the complex fields parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files using custom fields and return a SINGLE data instance.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('structured data from files'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like template-based extraction tools and batch processing 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It states 'Unlike template-based extraction...' for on-the-fly field definitions, gives use cases for single and multiple files, and explicitly says 'NOT for batch processing' with an alternative approach ('call this tool once per file in a loop').

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

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (extracts data), combines information from multiple files into one record, and specifies the output format ('json string format'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error handling, which could be useful for an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the second explains multi-file handling, use cases provide concrete examples, and exclusions prevent misuse. There's no redundant or verbose content, 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 complexity (AI-based extraction with multiple files and templates) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and output format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if extraction fails, which are relevant for an agent's decision-making.

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 adds meaningful context for all parameters: 'file_ids' is explained as 'The IDs of the files to read' with examples, 'template_key' as 'The ID of the template to use for extraction,' and 'ai_agent_id' as optional for 'The ID of the AI agent to use for processing.' This clarifies purpose beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., template structure).

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 tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data from one or more files and return a SINGLE metadata instance.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('files'), and output ('single metadata instance'), and distinguishes it from siblings like batch processing tools by explicitly stating 'NOT for batch processing.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It includes use cases (single file, multiple files) and explicitly states when not to use it ('NOT for batch processing'), with a clear alternative: 'call this tool once per file in a loop.' This helps the agent choose correctly among extraction-related siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting an authorization process and returning a message, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this initiates an OAuth flow requiring user interaction, potential side effects (e.g., setting tokens), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately disclose how the tool behaves in practice.

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 brief with three lines, but it's not optimally structured: it repeats the purpose ('Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process') and includes a vague return statement. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate redundancy, though it avoids excessive verbosity.

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 complexity (authorization is a critical, state-changing operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the authorization mechanism, what the return message signifies, or how this integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its role in the broader context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it could note the lack of inputs more explicitly.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Authorize the Box application' and 'Start the Box app authorization process', which provides a clear verb ('authorize') and resource ('Box application'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings, as no other tools in the list appear to handle authorization, but the description is somewhat vague about what authorization entails (e.g., OAuth flow, user consent).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to run this before other Box tools), exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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

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 deletion operation (implying destructive), but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format mention is minimal ('result of the deletion or an error message').

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 clear sections (Args, Returns). The purpose statement is front-loaded, though the formatting with explicit sections is slightly verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, what 'collaboration' means in this context, or detailed error handling. The sibling tools show this is part of a collaboration management system, but the description doesn't connect to that context.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'collaboration_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the collaboration to delete'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain ID format or where to find it. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of format details slightly reduces the score.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a specific collaboration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_update_tool' or 'box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 appropriate permissions), what happens after deletion, or when to use other collaboration tools like update or list tools instead.

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

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 that the tool creates a collaboration, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section mentions 'error message' but lacks detail on failure modes. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but includes redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, but the Args section repeats parameter names without adding much new context. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description partially compensates with parameter explanations and a basic return type hint. However, it lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: no mention of authentication requirements, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The output schema absence means the return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is vague and insufficient.

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 description must compensate. It provides meaningful details for all parameters: file_id and group_id are explained, role lists available values and default, and optional parameters (is_access_only, expires_at, notify) have clear descriptions. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully cover format specifics like DateTime for expires_at.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a collaboration on a file with a group specified by group ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and target ('group specified by group ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool, which creates collaborations with users instead of groups.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool (for folders) or box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (for users), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an authenticated client or appropriate permissions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this creates a collaboration (a write/mutation operation), mentions email notification capability, and hints at access control effects through is_access_only. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The structure helps an agent quickly parse the tool's functionality and requirements.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and indicates the return type, but doesn't describe error responses, required authentication level, or collaboration lifecycle implications. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. It documents all 6 parameters, explains their purposes, provides default values, enumerates available roles, and clarifies optional parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear to an agent.

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 specific action ('Create a collaboration on a file'), identifies the resource ('file'), and specifies the target ('with a user specified by user ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_login_tool by explicitly mentioning user ID identification rather than login credentials.

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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., role options, is_access_only effects), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool. It provides some guidance through default values and optional parameters but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates a collaboration and describes some parameter effects (e.g., is_access_only hides items from All Files list), but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a mutating operation. The return type is mentioned but not what success/failure looks like.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the description is moderately long (7 sentences). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, errors, and collaboration lifecycle. It mentions the return type but not what the dictionary contains. Given the complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail: file_id ('The ID of the file to collaborate on'), user_login ('The login (email) of the user'), role (default, available values), is_access_only (effect on visibility), expires_at (purpose), and notify (email notification). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create a collaboration on a file with a user specified by user login (email)', which provides a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and distinguishes from siblings like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (which uses user ID instead of login) and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool (which targets folders instead of files).

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 implies usage through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'user specified by user login'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation ('Create a collaboration'), which implies mutation/write access. It mentions authentication requirements ('Authenticated Box client') and describes some behavioral aspects like role options and access-only effects. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or what permissions are required to create collaborations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently explains the tool's purpose and parameters. The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by organized parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding some redundancy in parameter explanations.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It covers the core operation and parameters but lacks information about error handling, required permissions, rate limits, and the structure of the returned dictionary. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial semantic value. It explains all 7 parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the role parameter's default value and available options, and clarifies optional parameters like is_access_only's effects. The only gap is that the schema includes 'can_view_path' parameter not mentioned in the description.

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 specific action ('Create a collaboration'), target resource ('on a folder'), and collaboration partner ('with a group specified by group ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling collaboration tools like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool by specifying it's for folders and groups.

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. With multiple collaboration tools available (file vs folder, group vs user), there's no indication of when this folder-group collaboration tool is appropriate versus other collaboration methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates a collaboration, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section hints at error messages, but this is minimal. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but is verbose. Sentences like 'Create a collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' are efficient, but the parameter explanations are lengthy. It's front-loaded with the purpose, yet could be more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter names). Overall, it's adequate but not exemplary.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The Returns section mentions 'Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message,' which helps but is vague. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves gaps in understanding full behavior.

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 adds significant value by explaining all 7 parameters in the Args section, including meanings, defaults (e.g., role defaults to 'editor'), and options (e.g., available roles). This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't fully cover nuances like format for 'expires_at' (DateTime) or clarify 'can_view_path' (implied by 'is_access_only'), preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a folder'), and target ('user specified by user ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool' or 'box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool', which would require a 5.

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. With multiple collaboration tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool', 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. It also lacks prerequisites like authentication requirements or permission levels needed.

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

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 correctly identifies this as a creation/mutation operation ('Create a collaboration'), but lacks details about permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the collaboration already exists. The return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is minimal but acknowledges potential errors.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, Args, Returns). The opening sentence efficiently states the core functionality. The Args section is comprehensive but necessary given the parameter count. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'user login (email)' could be more concise), but overall it's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like authentication requirements, error handling specifics, and collaboration lifecycle considerations. The return value description is minimal given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial value by explaining all parameters in the Args section. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter, provides the default value for 'role', lists available role options, and explains the effect of 'is_access_only'. This compensates well for 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 specific action ('Create a collaboration'), resource ('on a folder'), and key differentiator ('with a user specified by user login (email)'). It distinguishes this tool from similar sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool' by specifying the user identification method.

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. While it mentions the user identification method, it doesn't explain when to choose email-based collaboration over user ID-based collaboration or other collaboration methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, 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.

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 list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the returned dictionary structure contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and subsequent sections are organized efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value structure beyond 'dictionary containing list of collaborations or error message', doesn't mention authentication or permissions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format, where to obtain it, or provide examples. With only one parameter and some documentation, this meets the baseline for adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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 'List' and resource 'collaborations on a specific file', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' by specifying 'file' rather than 'folder', but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.

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 like 'box_collaboration_list_by_folder_tool' or other collaboration tools. It simply states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, permissions needed, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether authentication/permissions are required, what format the collaborations list takes, if there are pagination limits, or what error conditions might occur. The mention of 'error message' in returns is minimal context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx (Context): The MCP context' line adds minimal value since context is typically implicit in MCP tools.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the collaboration data structure returned, authentication requirements, error handling, or how this differs from similar folder collaboration tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the parameter name 'folder_id' and clarifies it's 'The ID of the folder to list collaborations for', which gives basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain where to find folder IDs, format requirements, or validation rules, leaving significant gaps.

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 'List' and the resource 'collaborations on a specific folder', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from file-based collaboration tools (like box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool) by specifying 'folder', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other folder collaboration tools (like box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool).

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. With multiple sibling tools for folder collaborations (box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool, box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool, box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool), there's no indication whether this tool lists all collaborations or serves a different purpose compared to those user/group-specific tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when status is changed to 'rejected'. The description mentions it returns 'updated collaboration details or an error message' but provides no specifics about response format or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the Returns section could be more specific about what 'updated collaboration details' includes.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, and response structure. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters with their purposes, defaults, and specific values. It explains role options, status values, and what each parameter controls. The only gap is lack of format details for expires_at (though datetime is implied) and deeper context about parameter interactions.

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 specific action ('Update a specific collaboration's role') and resource ('collaboration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_collaboration_delete_tool or box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what aspect of the collaboration is being updated.

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 like box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool or box_folder_set_collaboration_tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for updating collaborations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a creation/mutation operation and describes the return format (success with batch ID or error message), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and a helpful example. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the example could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, and key 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?

Given the complexity (batch document generation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job. It explains parameters thoroughly, provides an example, and outlines return behavior. However, it lacks guidance on error handling specifics or integration with sibling tools like job listing tools.

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 provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters, including a detailed example for 'document_generation_data' that illustrates structure and usage. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though some nuances like data validation or constraints are not covered.

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 specific action ('Create a new Box Doc Gen batch'), the resource ('to generate documents from a template'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_create_single_file_from_user_input_tool' by emphasizing batch processing. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when generating multiple documents from a template in batch mode, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like the single-file sibling tool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear contextual boundaries are provided beyond the basic function.

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

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 creates a document, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the template ID or folder ID are invalid. The example shows data structure but doesn't explain 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 appropriately structured with sections for Args and Returns, but includes redundant 'example:' labels and could be more concise. The example data is helpful but takes significant space. Overall, it's functional but not optimally streamlined.

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 this is a document creation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, but with output schema present, the description does reasonably well. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return type, but lacks behavioral context about authentication, errors, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides substantial parameter context. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides a detailed example of the user_input structure, clarifies output_type options ('pdf' or 'docx'), and notes generated_file_name is optional. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of 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 action ('Create a single document') and resource ('from a Doc Gen template using user input'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_docgen_create_batch_tool', which appears to handle batch operations versus this single-file creation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from the batch creation sibling tool. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though hinted by 'Authenticated Box client'), error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the job ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters, but lacks context about when to use it, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but behavioral context is sparse.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'job_id' parameter as 'ID of the Doc Gen job' and mentioning the 'client' parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify the ID format or constraints.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('Box Doc Gen job by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool', which would require a 5.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for listing jobs and templates, but no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving a single job by ID rather than listing multiple jobs or using other retrieval methods.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects. It mentions pagination via 'marker' and 'limit', but doesn't describe how pagination works (e.g., default limits, marker usage). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into a single flowing paragraph rather than separate sections.

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 (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters and the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits), and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. The output schema handles return values, so that aspect is covered.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents all 3 parameters (batch_id, marker, limit), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'batch_id' is required and identifies 'marker' and 'limit' as optional for pagination. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints for 'batch_id' or typical values for 'limit', leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Doc Gen jobs in a specific batch.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which likely lists all jobs) by specifying 'in a specific batch.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' (which might list template-related jobs), leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' (which might list all jobs without batch filtering) or 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool' (for single job details). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing batch ID from 'box_docgen_create_batch_tool'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this lists jobs 'for the current user', which implies authentication is needed, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond mentioning parameters, or what happens if no jobs exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter and return documentation. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description rather than a separate Args section.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks important behavioral context like authentication requirements, error conditions, and pagination mechanics that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 2 parameters (marker, limit) with basic types and purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., limit ranges) or marker format details.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Box Doc Gen jobs for the current user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to Doc Gen jobs (e.g., 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the file is already marked. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: defining the action, listing arguments, and specifying the return. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' into the main flow).

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 complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance is needed for effective use.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'file_id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of 'file_id' (e.g., where to find it, valid patterns). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some compensation but lacks depth.

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 action ('Mark a file as a Box Doc Gen template') and identifies the resource ('file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (like box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool or box_docgen_template_list_tool), which would require mentioning creation vs. retrieval operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client or a specific file state), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that might handle templates differently (e.g., retrieval or listing tools). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

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 retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements (though 'client' parameter hints at it), rate limits, error conditions beyond 'error message', or what happens if the template_id doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, Args, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place. The purpose statement is front-loaded. Minor improvement could be merging the purpose and Args sections more seamlessly.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 1 parameter and output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters. However, with no annotations and a sibling tool ('box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool') that serves nearly identical purpose, it should better differentiate usage context. The output schema existence reduces need to detail return values, but more behavioral context would help.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'client (BoxClient): Authenticated Box client' and 'template_id (str): ID of the template.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details for template_id (UUID, numeric, etc.) or explain where to find template IDs, leaving some gaps.

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 tool's purpose with 'Retrieve details of a specific Box Doc Gen template' - a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Box Doc Gen template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' by specifying retrieval of a single template by ID rather than listing multiple templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' which serves a similar purpose with different identification method.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' (when you have ID vs name) or 'box_docgen_template_list_tool' (when you need a specific template vs browsing). The only usage context is implied through the parameter requirement for template_id.

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

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 retrieval operation (implying read-only) and mentions it returns metadata or an error message, but lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific metadata is included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal words to convey essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into natural language.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter structure, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially since annotations are absent.

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 'template_name' and its purpose ('Name of the template'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format expectations, constraints, or examples for the template name parameter.

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 ('Retrieve details') and resource ('specific Box Doc Gen template by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' by specifying retrieval by name rather than ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tool', nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication or template existence.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions pagination parameters (marker, limit) and the return type, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no jobs are found. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections makes it easy 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 that there's an output schema (DocGenJobsV2025R0), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and pagination behavior to be complete.

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 a parameter list with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that 'template_id' is for a specific template, 'marker' is for pagination, and 'limit' controls max items per page. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., template ID format, limit range).

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 tool's purpose: 'List Doc Gen jobs that used a specific template.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Doc Gen jobs'), and scope ('that used a specific template'). It distinguishes from general job listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool'.

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. There are multiple job-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_docgen_list_jobs_tool', 'box_docgen_list_jobs_by_batch_tool', 'box_docgen_get_job_by_id_tool'), but the description doesn't indicate when this template-filtered listing is preferred over other listing methods.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions pagination parameters ('marker', 'limit') and error handling in returns, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-safe understanding.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly verbose. Every part adds value, making it efficient and 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?

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return types but lacks behavioral context like error conditions or pagination behavior. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in the 'Args' section, including optionality and basic semantics. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID structure, limit ranges) or deeper meaning beyond naming, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('all tags for a Box Doc Gen template'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' or 'box_file_tag_list_tool', which list tags for different resource types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an authenticated client) or compare it to other tag-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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

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 pagination via 'marker' and 'limit' parameters, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements (though implied by 'client'), rate limits, error handling, or what 'accessible to the user' entails (e.g., permissions). The return type hint adds some value but lacks detail on metadata structure.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. There's minimal waste, though the return statement could be more concise. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context like authentication, error scenarios, or metadata examples. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness for this list operation.

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 all 2 parameters ('marker' for pagination, 'limit' for max items per page) and their purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify default values, constraints (e.g., min/max for 'limit'), or format details for 'marker'.

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 ('List') and resource ('Box Doc Gen templates accessible to the user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' and 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' by focusing on listing all templates rather than retrieving specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools in the server.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare with similar tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tags_tool', or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a copy operation (implying mutation), it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the destination already has a file with the same name, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words. The only minor issue is that the opening sentence could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains the core action and parameters at a high level, and the presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks important contextual information about permissions, error conditions, and behavioral nuances that would help the agent use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description adds some semantic value by explaining that 'new_name' is optional and provides a new name for the copied file, and that 'version_number' is optional and specifies which version to copy. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap - it doesn't explain what format file IDs should be in, what happens if version_number is invalid, or provide examples of valid inputs.

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 specific action ('Copy a file') and resource ('to a specified destination folder in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_move_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 like box_file_move_tool (which moves rather than copies) or box_folder_copy_tool (which copies folders). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions to access both source and destination. Without this context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated metadata/collaborations. The return value mention is minimal and doesn't explain error conditions or success criteria beyond 'dictionary containing success message or error'.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value mention. It's front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with schema fields. No wasted words, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and rich sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address safety concerns (permanent deletion?), authentication requirements, error handling, or how this differs from other deletion tools. While an output schema exists, the description's return value explanation is vague ('dictionary containing success message or error') without clarifying structure or common responses.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' is 'The ID of the file to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric vs string ID), validation rules, or examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file from Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_delete_tool' or 'box_web_link_delete_by_id_tool', but the resource specificity (file vs folder/web link) is implied through the tool name and description.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), what happens to the deleted file (permanent vs recoverable), or how it differs from similar operations like moving to trash. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads files and optionally saves them locally, and describes different return behaviors for text files, images, and unsupported files. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limitations, or error handling beyond the unsupported file case.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameters well and describes return value variations. However, it lacks information about authentication, permissions, and error scenarios beyond unsupported files.

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 provides clear explanations for all three parameters: file_id identifies the file, save_file controls local saving, and save_path specifies where to save with fallback to temporary directory. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Download a file from Box') and resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_info_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It explicitly mentions the optional local saving functionality, which adds specificity beyond just downloading.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_file_thumbnail_download_tool or box_file_text_extract_tool. The description mentions the optional save functionality but doesn't explain when to enable it versus just retrieving content directly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., metadata, permissions, content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 statement, parameter documentation, and return type. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. The structured 'Args' and 'return' sections help readability, though the return type 'dict[str, Any]' is somewhat vague.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to compensate—such as clarifying what 'information' includes or noting common use cases. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain where to find file IDs or provide examples, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 information' and the resource 'about a file in Box', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' or 'box_file_download_tool', which would require more precise language about what type of information is retrieved.

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. With many sibling tools available (like box_file_download_tool, box_file_tag_list_tool, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves basic metadata, comprehensive file details, or something else, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the lock prevents actions by others, which implies mutation and access control, but lacks details on permissions required, whether locks are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions the lock creator retains access, which is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear bullet points. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'optional' repeated in parameter descriptions), but overall it's 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and mentions return values, but lacks behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need for return value explanation, but gaps remain in usage context.

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 adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'file_id' identifies the file to lock, 'lock_expires_at' is an optional expiration in ISO 8601 format, and 'is_download_prevented' is an optional flag to block downloads. This covers all parameters beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Define a lock') and resource ('on a file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'box_file_unlock_tool' by specifying it creates rather than removes locks. It explains what the lock prevents (moving, renaming, or changing by others).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While it's clear this creates locks, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'box_file_unlock_tool' for removal.

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

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 the action is 'Move' which implies mutation/destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify important aspects like: whether this overwrites existing files with the same name, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or potential rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized - a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately clear.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and parameters minimally, and mentions there's an output schema ('Returns: dict[str, Any]'), which helps. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details about permissions, overwrite behavior, and error conditions that would be important for a file movement operation.

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 includes an 'Args' section that names the two parameters (file_id and destination_folder_id) and their types, which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what format these IDs should be in, where to find them, or provide any validation rules. The parameter documentation is basic but functional.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('a file to a specified destination folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_folder_move_tool or box_file_copy_tool, which would require mentioning this is specifically for moving files (not folders) and that it moves rather than copies.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like permissions needed), when not to use it (e.g., if the destination doesn't exist), or how it differs from similar tools like box_file_copy_tool or box_folder_move_tool in the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool renames a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, if it affects file metadata or sharing links, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Rename' implies mutation, but without annotations, the description should provide more context about what this operation entails.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but the structure is somewhat mechanical rather than flowing naturally.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a simple rename tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' as 'The ID of the file to rename' and 'new_name' as 'The new name for the file', which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., name length restrictions, allowed characters), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('a file in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_rename_tool' or 'box_file_move_tool', which would require more specific context about when to rename versus move or rename folders.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., box_file_move_tool, box_folder_rename_tool, box_file_set_description_tool), there's no indication of when renaming is appropriate versus moving, renaming folders, or setting descriptions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Clear/remove') and return type, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if this affects file access or compliance), error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief parameter and return details in a structured format. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is minimal for safe use.

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 'file_id' and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't explain format (e.g., numeric string) or constraints, leaving some gaps. With one parameter, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 action ('Clear/remove') and target ('retention date from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_file_retention_date_set_tool' beyond the obvious 'clear' vs 'set' distinction in their names, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection among the many sibling tools, such as when to clear a retention date versus other file operations.

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

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 successfully reveals the critical irreversible nature of the operation ('cannot be shortened once set'), which is essential for a mutation tool. It also specifies the return format, though it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with the irreversible constraint front-loaded for maximum impact. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining parameters, specifying the irreversible nature, and documenting the return format. However, it doesn't mention required permissions, potential errors, or how this interacts with other file operations. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'file_id' is explained as 'The ID of the file to update' and 'retention_date' as 'The retention date for the file in ISO 8601 format'. This adds crucial semantic information beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Set a retention date'), target resource ('for a file in Box'), and includes a critical behavioral constraint ('cannot be shortened once set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_retention_date_clear_tool' by specifying it's for setting rather than clearing retention dates.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to set retention dates on Box files) and implicitly contrasts with the 'clear' sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like other file management tools, though the sibling list shows many unrelated tools.

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

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 it 'Set[s] or update[s]' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing descriptions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a write operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter identification. However, it lacks important context about permissions, error handling, and behavioral details that would help an agent use it correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters and their purposes ('file_id: The ID of the file to update', 'description: The new description for the file'), which is helpful but minimal. It doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for either parameter.

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 action ('Set or update') and resource ('description of a file in Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like box_file_rename_tool or box_file_move_tool by focusing specifically on description modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from box_folder_set_description_tool, which performs a similar operation on folders.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. It also doesn't reference similar tools like box_file_rename_tool for other metadata updates.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'set[s] a file to be downloadable by company users' and 'restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles,' implying a mutation that changes permissions. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description for faster comprehension.

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 complexity (a mutation with permission changes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameter well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type ('str') and purpose ('The ID of the file to update'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'File Id' without description), the description fully compensates by adding clear parameter semantics. With 0% schema coverage and 1 parameter, the description does an excellent job explaining the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set a file to be downloadable by company users (restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles).' It specifies the verb ('set'), resource ('file'), and effect ('downloadable by company users'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings like 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'overrides role-based download permissions,' indicating a mutation that changes access settings, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns, making it efficient and easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 has an output schema (returns dict with updated file info), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the mutation purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but as a permission-changing tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like auth requirements or limitations.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond 'str'.

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 action ('Allow anyone with access to the file to download it') and specifies the resource ('file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by mentioning it 'overrides role-based download permissions,' suggesting it's for granting broader access, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the other download-setting tools in the sibling list. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

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 reset operation but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to existing custom download settings, or any rate limits. The description mentions 'based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain how these roles affect the reset behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 statement, parameter documentation, and return value documentation. Each sentence serves a clear function. The structure is logical with purpose first, then inputs, then outputs. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the parameter info more naturally rather than as a separate Args section.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides basic purpose and parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain for a tool that modifies file permissions.

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% (parameter 'file_id' has no description in schema), but the description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with type information. This adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format or where to find it, leaving some semantic gaps. With 1 parameter and partial documentation, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 ('Reset') and resource ('download permissions'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' and 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' by focusing on resetting to default behavior rather than setting specific policies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_open_tool'. It mentions 'default behavior based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain what triggers this need or what the default behavior entails. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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

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 adds valuable context by stating 'prevents duplicates,' which clarifies idempotent behavior not inferable from the name. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., invalid file_id), or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and key behavior, while the parameter and return documentation are essential for understanding. No wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action, parameters, and key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it could better address permissions or error handling to fully guide the agent.

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 explicitly documents both parameters (file_id and tag) with brief semantics, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., tag length, allowed characters) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('Add a tag to a file'), identifies the resource ('in Box'), and includes a distinctive behavioral detail ('prevents duplicates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_file_tag_remove_tool and box_file_tag_list_tool, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing file access permissions), compare it to similar tools like box_folder_tag_add_tool, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 read operation ('List'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with non-existent files. The description is minimal and lacks important context for safe invocation.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter and return documentation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, though the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks important context. With no annotations and many sibling tools, it should provide more guidance on usage scenarios, error handling, and differentiation from other tag/file tools to be complete.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this documentation is sufficient to compensate for the schema gap, though it could provide more detail about file ID format.

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 ('List') and resource ('tags associated with a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_list_tags_tool' or 'box_file_tag_add_tool', which would require a 5.

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. There are many sibling tools for file operations, including tag-related tools like 'box_file_tag_add_tool' and 'box_file_tag_remove_tool', but no indication of when this listing tool is appropriate versus those mutation tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes a tag and returns updated file information, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (e.g., what happens if the tag doesn't exist), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting could be more integrated (e.g., combining with natural language).

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a mutation 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'file_id' is 'The ID of the file to remove a tag from' and 'tag' is 'The tag to remove'. This clarifies purpose but lacks format details (e.g., tag constraints, file ID format). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but doesn't fully document the parameters.

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 action ('Remove a tag from a file in Box') with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'box_file_tag_add_tool' and 'box_file_tag_list_tool' by specifying removal rather than addition or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'box_folder_tag_remove_tool' for folder vs. file operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the tag must exist on the file), compare to similar tools (e.g., 'box_file_tag_add_tool' for adding tags), or specify error conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

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.

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 return format ('Dictionary with thumbnail image content in base64 or error message'), which adds some value, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential behavioral complexities.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still cover operational aspects more thoroughly given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by detailing all six parameters with clear semantics: 'file_id' as the file ID, 'extension' with allowed values ('png' or 'jpg') and default, and dimension parameters with pixel ranges (32-320). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.

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 ('Download') and resource ('thumbnail image of a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' by focusing on downloading the actual image rather than generating a URL, though this distinction could be more explicit.

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, such as 'box_file_thumbnail_url_tool' for URL generation or 'box_file_download_tool' for full file downloads. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with 'thumbnail URL or message if not available,' which hints at possible failure modes. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific conditions cause 'not available' (e.g., unsupported file formats, permissions). This partial disclosure is adequate but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Each sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core function, and parameter details are organized for quick parsing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs and hinting at output behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., what 'message if not available' entails) and doesn't reference the output schema. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is mostly complete but could be slightly enhanced with more behavioral context.

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 fully. It does so by detailing all 6 parameters: 'file_id' (required), 'extension' (optional, with allowed values 'png' or 'jpg'), and min/max height/width (optional, with pixel ranges 32-320). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including defaults and constraints, making parameters well-understood.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the URL for a thumbnail image of a file.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('thumbnail image of a file'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_thumbnail_download_tool' (which downloads the thumbnail vs. getting a URL), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'box_file_thumbnail_download_tool' for downloading thumbnails directly) or contextual prerequisites like file types that support thumbnails. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is to 'remove a lock' (implying a mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. While efficient, the Args and Returns formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter, but overall it's well-structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on permissions, errors, and usage context, which are important for completeness.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what a valid file ID looks like or where to find it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Remove a lock') and resource ('from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' beyond the obvious inverse relationship, which prevents a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the file must be locked first), error conditions, or related tools like 'box_file_lock_tool' for context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, file size limits, overwrite behavior, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and front-loaded the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the narrative flow.

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, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema handles return values, but the description should address mutation implications and error cases more explicitly.

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 provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: content type, file naming, and folder destination with default value. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could mention format constraints or ID validation.

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 specific action ('Upload content as a file') and resource ('to Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_download_tool or box_file_copy_tool. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_file_copy_tool or box_folder_create_tool. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication, folder permissions) or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool copies a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, whether it preserves folder contents and metadata, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The return value description is minimal ('Dictionary containing the copied folder object or error message').

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args/Returns format is efficient. However, the description could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information instead of just the basic action.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool (copy operation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about permissions, behavior with existing folders, error conditions, and return format details. The parameter documentation helps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that modifies data.

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%, but the description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section: folder_id ('ID of the folder to copy'), destination_parent_folder_id ('ID of the destination parent folder'), and name ('New name for the copied folder. If not provided, original name is used'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like ID constraints.

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 specific action ('Copies a folder') and resource ('in Box'), and distinguishes it from siblings like box_folder_move_tool (copy vs move) and box_file_copy_tool (folder vs file). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose distinguishes it from move operations, there's no mention of when copying is preferred over other folder operations, prerequisites, or limitations. The description assumes the agent knows when copying is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing folders, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of returning 'error message' hints at possible failures but lacks detail.

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 with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is organized, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient for understanding.

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 provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and detailed return value explanation. It's minimally adequate for a simple creation tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 fully. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_folder_id' with the specific note to use '0' for root folder. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.