export_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals the status progression pending → running → ready (or failed) and that mesh_id accepts UUID or name, but it omits permission requirements, rate limits, what 'recent' means, and whether the operation is read-only.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact status chain. Information is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description supplies the status lifecycle and accepted mesh_id formats. It is nearly complete, though usage guidance remains thin.

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. It adds meaningful semantics by stating that mesh_id can be a UUID or a name, which is not present in the input schema. The remaining ambiguity is minor for a single-parameter tool with an output schema.

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 and resource: 'List recent exports for a mesh ... with their status.' The status lifecycle and the word 'exports' distinguish it from export_mesh, which likely initiates an export. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool or contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_mesh or other list tools. It does not state prerequisites, when-not conditions, or the practical scenario for checking export status.

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