Prepared-export status

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

The description explicitly discloses the always-200 response behavior, the exact status enum values (ready|running|error|none), and that a 'ready' status carries the artifact and download_path. This is valuable because no output schema is provided. It also reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation with no contradiction, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and HTTP path, and the second gives the critical response contract. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple status endpoint with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the response shape well. However, it lacks workflow context: it does not explain that this tool is meant to poll preparation progress, what 'none' or 'error' implies for next steps, or how the source parameter affects results. These gaps leave an agent with partial, though not minimal, understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It identifies 'scene+format' which maps to scan_id and format, but it does not explain the optional 'source' parameter or provide any additional detail about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already gives.

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 this is a query for what export is prepared for a given scene and format, with an explicit HTTP path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_prepare and export_manifest by focusing on status and readiness. It could be more explicit about not creating or modifying exports, but the 'status' wording largely covers this.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_prepare, export_manifest, or artifact_fetch. It does not mention that it should be called after export_prepare or before artifact_fetch. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the word 'status', so an agent receives no concrete guidance on the workflow.

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