get_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "your own" adds a small ownership/access-scoping hint, but nothing describes what lifecycle states are returned, whether the result is transient or final, or whether polling is expected — significant gaps for a status-check 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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the key ownership constraint front-loaded. Its brevity is close to the right shape, though it crosses from concise into under-specified rather than being padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what an export's "state" consists of, and it does not. For a one-parameter polling-style read tool the definition is callable but leaves the agent guessing about return semantics and lifecycle.

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%: export_id is documented only by name, uuid format, and a strict UUID pattern. The description adds nothing about where an export_id comes from (presumably request_export) or whether unknown/expired IDs error. Because coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("export"), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, "state" is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether this returns progress/status, error information, or the exported content itself. It also doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like get_latest_edition or request_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to call this after request_export to poll, nor whether it should be polled or called once. The natural alternative (request_export, which creates the export this reads) is never mentioned. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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