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 effectively describes the tool as a polling API, explains the status values ('DONE', 'RUN'), and mentions that 'DONE' returns a ZIP file path. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'failed state', which are important for a polling operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but contains redundant information (e.g., repeating details about 'ResultFile3Ds' and 'DONE' status). Sentences like 'Returns the generation task status...' and 'When the status is 'DONE'...' could be consolidated for better efficiency, making it somewhat verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of a polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, status outcomes, and return data for 'DONE', but it misses error states, response structure for non-DONE statuses, and integration with sibling tools like 'generate_hunyuan3d_model'. This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'job_id' as 'The job_id given in the generate model step,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic 'Job Id' title. This is sufficient for understanding the parameter's role, though it doesn't detail format or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Check if the Hunyuan3D generation task is completed.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Hunyuan3D generation task'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_hunyuan3d_status', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides some implied usage guidance by stating 'This is a polling API, so only proceed if the status are finally determined ('DONE' or some failed state).' This suggests when to use it (for polling until completion), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_hunyuan3d_status' or specify when not to use it, leaving room for confusion.

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