multiview_to_3d

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's an async operation (not immediate), requires polling via 'task_status' and retrieval via 'download_model', and produces better geometry than single-image input. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the core operational workflow well.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds quality differentiation, and the third explains the async workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the async nature, references companion tools, and distinguishes from siblings. The output schema will handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than output details.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain image format requirements, angle spacing, or faceLimit implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Generate a 3D model') from specific inputs ('2-4 reference images taken from different angles') and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'image_to_3d' by noting it 'Produces significantly better geometry than single-image input.' This provides clear differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for 2-4 images from different angles to get better geometry than single-image) and when not to use it (implied: not for single images, use 'image_to_3d' instead). It also names specific alternative tools ('task_status' and 'download_model') for handling the async operation, giving clear operational context.

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