box_analyze_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that Box AI is used, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, cost/rate implications, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. The parenthetical operation list adds some context but is not enough for an AI-backed analysis 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 a single focused sentence with no wasted words and the core idea is front-loaded. Its brevity is acceptable, though the parenthetical list is slightly incomplete relative to the analysisType enum, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, nested option objects, six analysis modes, and no output schema. The description only provides a one-line overview and omits usage context, behavior, return expectations, and guidance for choosing analysisType. That is insufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value by listing some analysis types, but it does not explain how options, question, or file identifiers interact. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('document') and lists the main operations: summarize, Q&A, extract, translate. It is clearer than the bare tool name and broadly distinguishes it from read/search siblings, though it omits 'classify' and 'extract_structured' from the parenthetical and remains somewhat generic.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_read_document or box_search_content. The description simply says 'Use Box AI to analyze a document' but does not explain what makes it the right choice, what inputs it requires, or when a sibling would be preferable.

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