retrieve_text_to_3d_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether the call is read-only and side-effect free, what status values are possible (pending/running/failed/succeeded), whether the result field is null while incomplete, or whether failures surface as errors or in the payload.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

This is an async task-polling tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, so the description is the only source of information about return shape and lifecycle. It never describes what 'status' looks like, how to detect completion, or what 'result' contains, which is exactly what an agent needs to drive a poll-until-done loop.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not. The parameter name task_id is self-explanatory, but the description never says where the ID originates (presumably the create call's response) or what format it takes.

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 states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (text-to-3d task), including that it returns both status and result. The naming convention makes it distinguishable from its create_/list_/stream_/delete_ siblings, though the text itself does not call out the 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_text_to_3d_tasks or stream_text_to_3d_task, nor any mention of polling cadence, retry behavior, or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the polling call for a task created via create_text_to_3d_task.

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