poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the status values ('DONE' and 'RUN'), the condition for completion, and the result field (ResultFile3Ds) when done. However, it does not describe specific failure states or error handling, which would add completeness.

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 understandable but contains redundancy: the statement about ResultFile3Ds appears twice in similar wording. This repetition inflates length without adding new information. It could be tightened to a more concise single explanation.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: what to poll, what statuses mean, and what the result is upon completion. It lacks explicit failure state details and mentions 'some failed state' only vaguely, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides a bare parameter definition (job_id), but the description adds critical context: 'The job_id given in the generate model step.' This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and tells the agent where to obtain the value.

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's purpose: 'Check if the Hunyuan3D generation task is completed.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_hunyuan3d_status', which appears to serve a similar function.

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?

Usage context is implied through the polling note ('This is a polling API, so only proceed if the status are finally determined'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_hunyuan3d_status or other alternatives.

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