box_job_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to disclose that. It adds the fact that it reads from files under .mcp-box-jobs/, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe expected return values, error behavior if files are missing, or whether the polling is one-shot or repeated, leaving some 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 a single concise sentence that states the action and the resource. There is no redundant or filler content; every word serves a purpose, and the 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?

The tool is simple and read-only, but with no output schema, the description ought to clarify what the status output looks like or how to interpret it. The mention of files hints at persistence but lacks guidance on handling missing jobs or understanding state values. Adequate for basic understanding, yet leaves room for improvement.

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 describes boxId but not jobId. The description mentions 'jobId' in the file path, giving some meaning to that parameter, but it does not elaborate on boxId or how it is used. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 polls background job state, with a specific resource (the .mcp-box-jobs/<jobId>/ files). It is distinct from sibling tools like box_exec_background or box_get due to the 'poll' action and file-path reference, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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 implies the tool is used to check the status of background jobs, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool appropriate or not.

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