get_export_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only probe but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the disk check requires a local filesystem path, behavior for expired/unknown job IDs, or whether polling is rate-limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and the two capabilities (job status, disk inspection) are grouped economically.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of the load. It identifies the sources (Premiere Pro / Adobe Media Encoder) and the two modes of operation, but never describes the returned status vocabulary or progress/error reporting, which is the primary reason an agent would call it.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only light framing by implying job_id maps to status and output_path maps to the on-disk check.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it checks export job status and verifies an output file on disk. It is distinguishable in practice from export_active_sequence (which initiates) and cancel_export_when_supported, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the job_id parameter description ties it to 'export_active_sequence', suggesting a poll-after-start workflow, and the word 'recent' hints it works without args. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on choosing between the two optional parameters.

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