generate_hyper3d_model_via_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It only covers input constraints (local vs remote, optional bbox_condition) but omits crucial traits: whether the operation is synchronous, what it returns (job ID, model object?), required permissions, or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for the agent.

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 three sentences, each adding essential info: purpose, input rule, optional parameter. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return value or result handling. It doesn't. For a generation tool with three parameters, it omits important context about the generated model's lifecycle (e.g., where it's stored, how to access it). The description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It does explain that input_image_paths are for local files, input_image_urls for remote URLs, and bbox_condition is an optional [L,W,H] ratio. This clarifies the form but lacks details like file format constraints or size limits, so only modest improvement over schema.

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 'Generate 3D model from images using Hyper3D Rodin', specifying the verb (generate), resource (3D model), and method (from images). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_hyper3d_model_via_text and generate_hunyuan3d_model by focusing on image input.

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 instructs to provide either input_image_paths or input_image_urls, not both, giving clear input selection guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or contrast with alternatives like generate_hunyuan3d_model, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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