convert_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: this is an 'async operation' requiring polling via 'task_status' and subsequent retrieval via 'download_model'. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the essential workflow.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and supported formats, the second explains the async workflow. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (async operation with polling), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the workflow and purpose well but could mention error cases or prerequisites. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for that in the description.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context by listing the specific format options (GLTF, FBX, OBJ, STL, USDZ, 3MF) and clarifying that 'originalTaskId' refers to 'the model to convert', but doesn't provide additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('convert a generated 3D model') and resource ('to a different file format'), listing the supported formats. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_model' or 'task_status' by focusing on format conversion rather than retrieval or status checking.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to convert a generated 3D model to a different file format') and provides clear workflow guidance: 'use task_status to poll progress, then download_model to retrieve the converted file.' This directly addresses alternatives and sequencing with sibling tools.

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