Import progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool covers both running and finished imports, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior for unknown or invalid import_ids, but 'progress' strongly implies a non-mutating status query.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler or repetition, and the core purpose is stated immediately. Every word contributes meaning, making it an example of efficient, front-loaded writing.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the input and general purpose. It is slightly thin on return semantics and potential failure modes, but the simplicity of the tool limits how much context is required.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'by its import_id' explains the purpose and role of the only parameter, which is enough for a single simple string identifier. It could add format guidance, but the meaning is clear.

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 identifies the resource (import) and the focus (progress), and specifies the lookup key (import_id). It does not use a direct verb like 'gets' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinguishes it from import creation tools like sweipe_import_demo.

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 phrase 'running or finished import' implies this tool is appropriate when an import already exists and the agent needs its status. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this over sweipe_status or other sibling tools, and it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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