Get a Wiro task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: active-task nextAction handling, ordered typed segments for completed runs, the run_model continuation template, and the requirement to show media resources. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavior or constraint. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the key pitfalls an agent faces: not resubmitting active tasks, following nextAction, and including media in the user-facing response. With annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential is missing.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents taskid, tasktoken, and wait_seconds. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, though it reinforces the default immediate check consistent with wait_seconds defaulting to 0.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the current status and output of one task.' It explains the default immediate-check behavior, which helps distinguish it from run_model and wait_for_task, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: for active tasks, follow the returned nextAction instead of submitting another run, and present media resources when complete. It does not explicitly explain when to choose wait_for_task over this tool, but the provided context is sufficient for most routing decisions.

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