Get background job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific status outcomes (running, succeeded, failed, cancelled) but does not provide additional behavioral context such as how missing/invalid job IDs are handled or whether the response includes more than the status.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes information, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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 status-check tool, the description is adequate: it lists the expected states and the annotations cover safety. However, the lack of parameter explanations and the absence of an output schema mean the agent must infer return format and edge-case behavior, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not explain the parameters at all. The parameter names (box_id, job_id) and pattern constraints provide some meaning, but the agent is left to guess the exact purpose and format beyond the regex patterns.

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 function with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('background job status'), and enumerates the possible states (running, succeeded, failed, cancelled). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_job_start, box_job_cancel, and box_job_logs.

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 usage context is implied: it is the only tool among siblings that reports job status, so the agent can infer it is for monitoring/polling. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any specific prerequisites or exceptions.

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