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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'fetch' implies a read operation, the description doesn't state that it is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., task not found), or whether any authentication is required. This is minimal at best.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and the object of the action efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions status and latest result payload but doesn't address possible states like 'running' or 'failed,' nor does it clarify what happens when no payload exists. Adequate but incomplete 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it does not enhance understanding of task_id or action.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly names the resource: 'current status and latest result payload for a wan task.' This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like text_to_video and animate, which are clearly not retrieval operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used after creating a task or that it is the polling mechanism for async operations, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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