get_export_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavior: export progress is tied to the session auth token, there is exactly one current export per connection, and no token argument is needed. However, it doesn't describe status values, what happens when no export exists, or whether the call is non-blocking; these details are left to the output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a concise rationale for the lack of arguments. The second paragraph is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds useful context about session-bound behavior.

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 zero-argument status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reports, when it applies, and why it takes no input. It could be more complete regarding edge cases like no prior export or multiple exports, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explains why none are needed—unlike imports, exports are not tracked by a token but by the session's auth token. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty input schema and fully resolves any confusion about argument requirements.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report the status') and a clearly identified resource ('the current session's most recent export'), and explicitly distinguishes it from import progress tracking. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does and how it relates to export_genotypes.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool: after starting an export with wait=False, and that it takes no arguments. It contrasts exports with imports, which helps an agent route to get_import_progress for import status, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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