wan_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the task states (pending, processing, completed, failed) and indicates the tool returns status and result URLs. It does not cover rate limits or polling behavior, but for a status-checking tool, this is adequate and not misleading.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for task states. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately summarizes the return type (status and video URLs). The sibling tools list provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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 single parameter 'task_id' is described in the schema, but the description adds valuable context: 'The task ID returned from a generation request. This is the 'task_id' field from any wan_generate_* tool response.' This clarifies the origin and usage beyond the schema's description.

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 that the tool queries the status and result of a video generation task. It is well differentiated from sibling tools like wan_generate_video (which creates tasks) and wan_get_tasks_batch (which retrieves multiple tasks).

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 explicitly states to use this tool to check if a generation is complete and retrieve results. It also lists task states, providing guidance on when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the context.

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