generate_turnaround

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses async nature, output directory, and consistency requirement, but omits details like error handling, authentication needs, or what constitutes success/failure.

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-load the purpose and output specifics. The second sentence adds crucial user-interaction guidance. No extraneous information.

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 an async task with no output schema, the description should explain the return value (presumably a task ID). It does not. However, it covers input, output directory, and user interaction, making it mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default subfolder, the purpose of fileName (meaningful name), and how to obtain projectDir (via pwd).

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 verb (submit async task), resource (turnaround view generation), and output (2x2 grid with front/side/back/action). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image (single image) and generate_video by specifying multi-view output.

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?

Provides explicit instruction for the agent to ask the user about tracking behavior, which aids in correct usage. Does not fully detail when to choose this over siblings, but the purpose differentiation is clear enough.

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