poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the possible statuses ('DONE', 'RUN', and a failed state), states that it returns ResultFile3Ds on success, and identifies itself as a polling API. This is transparent for a read-only status check, though it could mention error handling or timeout behavior.

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 redundantly worded. It repeats the ResultFile3Ds information twice: once in a bullet point and again in a separate sentence. The overall structure mixes bullet points and prose, making it less scannable. It could be trimmed to two or three concise sentences without losing information.

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 adequately covers what the tool returns (status and optional result path), how to interpret statuses, and when to stop polling. It lacks explicit examples of failure states or timeout guidance, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines job_id as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that job_id is 'the job_id given in the generate model step', providing precise provenance and context for the parameter.

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: checking if a Hunyuan3D generation task is completed. It uses a specific verb ('check'), names the resource ('Hunyuan3D generation task'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like poll_rodin_job_status or get_hunyuan3d_status by explicitly mentioning Hunyuan3D and its polling nature.

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 practical usage guidance: it explains that this is a polling API and instructs to 'only proceed if the status are finally determined'. It also tells when the result is ready (when status is 'DONE'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools like get_hunyuan3d_status, so it misses a clear exclusion.

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