poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling nature, how to interpret statuses (DONE vs RUN), and that a successful response includes a ResultFile3Ds field with the generated ZIP path. This goes beyond a generic status check, though it repeats the ResultFile3Ds detail and doesn't enumerate possible failure states.

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 moderately concise but contains redundancy: the ResultFile3Ds return is described twice in successive sentences. The formatting with a 'Parameters' block is awkward, but the overall length is acceptable.

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 simple polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the statuses and result field, and provides a clear poll-until-done instruction. It could be improved by listing explicit failure states, but it is otherwise complete for an agent to know when to stop polling and what to expect.

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 schema only defines job_id as a string with a default of null, so the description's clarification that it is 'given in the generate model step' adds essential provenance context. It doesn't explicitly state that job_id is required, but it is strongly implied.

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 states it checks if a Hunyuan3D generation task is completed, naming the specific action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_hunyuan3d_status, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific polling endpoint.

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 description gives usage context by referencing the job_id from the generate step and explains it is a polling API with a stop condition ('only proceed if the status are finally determined'). It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the polling behavior and poll-until-final guidance are clear.

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