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. It discloses the statuses (DONE, RUN), the ResultFile3Ds field on success, and the polling nature. However, it only vaguely references 'some failed state' and lacks details on error handling, invalid job IDs, or the safety of repeated calls.

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 a clear purpose but suffers from redundancy: the ResultFile3Ds content is described twice in almost identical terms. A more concise single explanation would improve it. The structure with a parameters list is helpful, but the repetition detracts.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains return values (status and ResultFile3Ds). However, it is incomplete in covering failure states ('some failed state' is vague) and does not address edge cases like invalid job_id or behavior on unexpected responses. For a polling tool, more explicit guidance on final states would improve completeness.

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 job_id with no description, and the context notes 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining job_id is 'the job_id given in the generate model step', which gives clear provenance and usage. This adds meaning beyond 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 'Check if the Hunyuan3D generation task is completed', with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from other poll tools (e.g., poll_rodin_job_status) by specifying Hunyuan3D, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_hunyuan3d_status, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 indicates that job_id comes from the generate model step and that this is a polling API to be used until a final status (DONE or failed) is reached. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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