bittensor_3d

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

Excellent disclosure given no annotations: reveals async polling behavior ('polls until ready'), timeout constraint ('up to 3 min'), return format ('GLB file URL'), and cost ('$0.75 per call'). This compensates fully for missing annotations.

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?

Five information-dense sentences with zero waste. Structure is logical: purpose → requirements → behavior → return value → cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully compensates by specifying the GLB return format. Covers critical operational details (async nature, 3-minute timeout, cost) that agents need to handle this tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'prompt' and 'image_url'. Description reinforces the image URL requirement but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('generation'), resource ('3D asset'), and mechanism ('via Bittensor subnet 29'). The 'Image-to-3D' scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bittensor_image, bittensor_video, and bittensor_text.

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?

Provides implied usage through specific scope ('Image-to-3D asset generation') and mentions prerequisite ('Requires a source image URL'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools like bittensor_image.

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