image_to_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an async operation requiring polling with 'task_status' and separate retrieval with 'download_model'. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, supported image formats, or error handling, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second specifies input requirements, and the third explains the async workflow. No wasted words.

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 complexity (async 3D generation), no annotations, but with rich schema (100% coverage) and output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and workflow but could better address potential constraints or prerequisites for successful operation, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema by mentioning 'Provide a local file path or public URL' which corresponds to imagePath and imageUrl parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about modelVersion, faceLimit, textureQuality, or orientation choices beyond what's in 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('3D model from a reference image'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'text_to_3d' or 'multiview_to_3d' by specifying it works from a single image. It precisely communicates what the tool does without redundancy.

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 ('Generate a 3D model from a reference image') and provides clear alternatives for related operations ('use task_status to poll progress and download_model to retrieve the result'), giving complete guidance on workflow integration without ambiguity.

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