poll_rodin_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool polls status and when task is done, but lacks details on idempotency, poll intervals, rate limits, or what the response contains when not yet done. This leaves ambiguity for repetitive polling.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, completion condition, and parameter guidance. No superfluous words, front-loaded with action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points but could be enhanced by describing the return format or typical polling behavior. It is sufficient for basic usage.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: clarifies that subscription_key is for MAIN_SITE and request_id for FAL_AI, and implies they are alternatives. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 Hyper3D Rodin generation status, specifies completion condition ('all statuses are Done'), and identifies parameters from the generate step. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_hyper3d_status' and 'poll_hunyuan_job_status'.

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 indicates when to use the tool (after generate step) by referencing subscription_key or request_id from that step. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or compare with alternative polling tools.

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