Render Job

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that results remain available for repeat polls, that discard=True drops the cached image and closes its temp document, that discard is ignored while running, and that finished jobs are auto-evicted oldest-first past an internal cap. This matches destructiveHint=true without contradicting it.

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?

Three tight paragraphs: purpose, return shape, and cleanup behavior. Each sentence adds necessary information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return object for every status ('running', 'done', 'failed'), lists the done payload fields, explains repeat-poll availability, and covers both manual and automatic cleanup. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter burden. It fully explains discard semantics (when it applies, what it does, ignored while running) and implies job_id comes from render_photoreal_submit, though it does not explicitly say 'use the job_id returned by the submit call.'

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Poll an async render started by render_photoreal_submit.' This verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from generic job tools and ties it directly to the submission sibling. It clearly identifies this as the render-specific polling counterpart.

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 states when to use it (after render_photoreal_submit) and when to set discard=True ('once you have a terminal result'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like job_status or job_result, but the usage context is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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