screenstudio_export_status

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

Annotations declare it is non-destructive and not open-world, but readOnlyHint=false is the only notable flag and the description adds useful return behavior: it yields the delivered file with encoded media properties once complete. It still omits what is returned while the job is pending, error/failure states, and whether polling is safe or 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 and resource lead, and the return behavior follows as a subordinate clause. Nothing is wasted.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description should carry the return-value burden, and it only partially does (mentions the file and encoded properties). Pending, failed, and expired job outcomes, plus the relationship to export_start, are missing.

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% and the description never mentions jobId. The schema does constrain it to a UUID format/pattern, so an agent can infer the type, but the description adds no semantics about where the jobId comes from or how it is obtained.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (an export job), which cleanly separates it from export_start, export_cancel, export_frame, and export_variants. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other export tools, nor any note that it is meant to be polled after screenstudio_export_start. Usage is only implied by the word 'job'.

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