getExportStatus

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 context. It doesn't disclose what status values might be returned, whether this is a polling operation, what happens if the export doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description is too sparse for a status-checking 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly 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 status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information will be returned, what statuses are possible, or how to interpret results. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not creating confusion about non-existent 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 verb ('Check') and resource ('status of an ongoing export'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'getImportStatus' which has a similar checking pattern, preventing 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an export ID from 'exportBookmarks'), nor does it clarify what constitutes 'ongoing export' versus completed/failed exports.

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