poll_rodin_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a polling API, explains the return format (list of statuses or a single status), and details what each state means (done, in-progress, failed, canceled). This goes beyond a simple 'check status' by explaining how to interpret results and when to proceed.

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 structured into clear mode-specific sections, front-loading the purpose. It is somewhat verbose with repeated polling guidance, but every sentence contributes essential information and the structure aids readability.

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 two-mode complexity and absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, and how to interpret statuses. It could mention error handling or behavior when both parameters are supplied, but it is sufficiently complete for a status-checking tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that subscription_key is for MAIN_SITE and request_id for FAL_AI, both given from the generate model step. This adds meaningful context missing from the schema, though it doesn't clarify if both can be provided or constraints like formats.

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 checks if a Hyper3D Rodin generation task is completed, with a specific verb 'check' and resource 'Hyper3D Rodin generation task'. It distinguishes between two modes (MAIN_SITE and FAL_AI), which differentiates it from sibling polling tools like poll_hunyuan_job_status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including specifying which parameter to use for each mode and the polling semantics ('only proceed if the status are finally determined'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the Rodin-specific context makes it obvious.

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