poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the status values DONE and RUN, the ResultFile3Ds field on success, and the generated ZIP/OBJ path. The polling nature and 'only proceed if final' guidance are also transparent, though failure statuses remain vaguely described.

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 mostly clear and front-loaded, but it repeats the same DONE-result detail twice in slightly different wording ('If status is DONE, returns...' and 'When the status is DONE, the response includes...'). This redundancy weakens an otherwise reasonably sized description.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the source of job_id, meaningful statuses, and what the successful response contains. It does not enumerate all possible failed states, but 'some failed state' is sufficient for the agent to know when to stop polling.

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 provides no description coverage for job_id, so the description's explanation that job_id comes from the generate model step adds necessary semantic meaning. It could be stronger by stating whether the parameter is required, but the source and usage are clear enough for a single-parameter polling tool.

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 the tool checks whether a Hunyuan3D generation task is completed and explains the relevant statuses. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_hunyuan3d_status, though the polling-focused wording and name provide some distinction.

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?

It indicates this is a polling API and tells the agent to proceed only when the status is final, which gives useful context. However, it does not describe when to prefer this tool over get_hunyuan3d_status or other status-checking siblings, nor does it state explicit exclusions.

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