Get a Wiro task

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

Annotations already provide readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the immediate-check behavior, the instruction to follow nextAction, and the requirement to present media resources in the user response. This goes beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of actionable information: purpose, behavior for active tasks, and output presentation.

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 a full output schema, parameter schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adds the remaining behavioral context. It's complete for a retrieval tool with no gaps evident.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the current status and output of one task,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wait_for_task by noting it's an immediate check, and from run_model by its focus on status/output.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it (immediate check) and provides a clear when-not: 'For an active task, follow the returned nextAction instead of submitting another run.' This gives actionable guidance even though it doesn't name an alternative tool.

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