poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a status check, but it does not say whether the call blocks until completion, what a non-completed result looks like, whether repeated polling is safe, or what response the agent should expect.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately short for a simple status-check tool, though the lack of usage context prevents a perfect score.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the return shape, job lifecycle, or how this relates to the generate step. The schema covers job_id well, but the agent still lacks enough context to invoke and interpret the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter job_id is already described as 'Job ID from generate step'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: checking whether a Hunyuan3D generation task is completed. It is clear enough on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_hunyuan3d_status, which may cover the same status-checking behavior.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hunyuan3d_status or poll_rodin_job_status. The schema hints that the job_id comes from a generate step, but the description does not explain the intended polling workflow or exclusions.

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