get_3d_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call polls once and that on success you should download via assetUrl with the same API key. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when status is not succeeded, whether it can be called repeatedly, or any error behavior. Partial transparency but missing key behavioral details.

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 with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the follow-up action (download on success) is added efficiently. No redundant information, excellent structure for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and next step. However, it omits details about the response structure (e.g., status field values, assetUrl presence) and fails to mention what to do if status is not succeeded, which an agent might need. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a simple poll.

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% (taskId described as 'returned by generate_3d'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'poll' and the resource '3D task status', and the phrase 'once' makes it a single-shot status check. It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tools generate_3d (creates a task) and generate_3d_and_wait (creates and waits), though it doesn't explicitly name them. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this after generate_3d' or 'instead of generate_3d_and_wait for polling'. The prerequisite that taskId comes from generate_3d appears only in the schema, not the description. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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