annotation_check_export_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It only states 'Check the status of export jobs' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what statuses are returned, or any side effects. This is a clear gap for an API 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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool, though it could be slightly 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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what 'status' means (e.g., possible values, whether it's a snapshot or poll). It also fails to mention how this fits with sibling tools like annotation_export, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly in a workflow.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (project_id and export_ids), each with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Check the status of export jobs' uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('export jobs'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It is distinguished from siblings like annotation_export (which creates exports) and annotation_download_export (which downloads them), though it doesn't explicitly mention the project_id scope that appears in the schema.

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 such as monitor_job_status or annotation_export. The description is a standalone statement without any context about typical workflows (e.g., after starting an export) or exclusions.

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