poll_hunyuan_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: statuses ('DONE', 'RUN'), the meaning of DONE (returns ResultFile3Ds), and the polling nature. It lacks details on failure states or rate limits, but for a simple polling tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with purpose but contains redundancy: the return value is described twice ('returns ResultFile3Ds, which is the generated ZIP model path' and 'the response includes a field named ResultFile3Ds that contains the generated ZIP file path'). This repetition makes it less concise than it could be.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, statuses, and return format. It does not mention next steps (e.g., importing the asset) or error handling, but for a straightforward polling tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 no description for job_id (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'job_id: The job_id given in the generate model step,' which tells the agent where to obtain the value. It does not specify type or format, but the provenance is valuable and adds meaning beyond the raw 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 function: 'Check if the Hunyuan3D generation task is completed.' It identifies the resource (Hunyuan3D task) and the action (poll for status). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_hunyuan3d_status, so it loses a point for lack of explicit sibling distinction.

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?

It provides usage context by mentioning this is a polling API and instructs to 'only proceed if the status are finally determined (DONE or some failed state).' It also ties the job_id to the generate step. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions for when to use this versus sibling status-check tools.

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