poll_rodin_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the two supported modes, the meaning of each status value, and the polling semantics. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only polling tool, the explanation of return statuses and when to proceed is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured with two mode-specific sections, making the information easy to scan. Each sentence provides necessary detail about statuses and when to proceed. It's longer than a one-liner but the density of useful information justifies the length, with no redundant filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two modes, two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main requirements: how to check completion, status interpretations, and the polling principle. The primary gap is that the response structure isn't explicitly described—for MAIN_SITE it says 'Returns a list of status' but doesn't specify if these are strings or objects, and for FAL_AI it says 'Returns the generation task status' without detailing the exact format.

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 schema has no descriptions and both parameters are optional, so the description adds essential meaning. It explicitly links subscription_key to MAIN_SITE mode and request_id to FAL_AI mode, explaining they come from the generate model step. However, it doesn't specify the exact format or clarify which parameter is required in each mode, which is a minor gap.

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 checks if a Hyper3D Rodin generation task is completed, with a specific verb (poll) and resource (Rodin job status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_hyper3d_status and poll_hunyuan_job_status by focusing on polling and specifying the two Rodin modes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a generate step, to poll until the task reaches a final state. It explicitly states 'This is a polling API, so only proceed if the status are finally determined,' which gives actionable guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the mode-specific instructions and reference to the generate step make usage conditions clear.

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