sac_export_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to clarify that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or how to interpret the status. Key behavioral traits like idempotency or polling recommendations are missing, which is a significant gap 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key outputs. Every word serves a function; no redundancy or fluff. 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It does not list possible statuses or progress format, but for a status polling tool, the description is adequate. Minor improvement would be to mention that status should be polled until completion.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'jobId', with schema description stating it is 'The job ID returned by sac_export_story_start'. The tool description adds no additional context beyond this, so parameter semantics fully rely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get the current status of a Content Network export job.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (status of export job), and return values (status, progress, downloadUrl). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sac_export_story_start (starts export) and sac_export_download (downloads completed export).

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 implies this tool is used to check progress after starting an export, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling tools (sac_export_story_start, sac_export_download) provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on sequencing or when not to use this tool.

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