wait_for_asset

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

No annotations provided, so description fully informs behavior: polls until taskStatus 2 or 3 or timeout, then returns final asset. It does not explicitly state non-destructive nature but polling implies no side effects. Could mention it does not modify state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: first explains behavior, second gives usage context.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and usage context but lacks parameter details and explicit return format. It says 'return the final asset', which is adequate but not exhaustive for a complete understanding.

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 has 0% coverage, but description does not explain parameters like asset_id, timeout_seconds, or poll_interval_seconds. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 polls an asset until it finishes or timeout, specifying verb 'poll' and resource 'asset'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_asset (which may not wait) and download_asset, and explicitly lists generative tools to use after.

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 explicitly says 'Use right after generate_* / remesh / texture / animate', providing strong positive guidance. It also notes that 3D generations take minutes, setting expectations. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for other scenarios.

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