Wait for a Wiro task

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, the description discloses the polling loop ('repeat the exact nextAction'), the instruction not to resubmit, and the special run_model continuation-template case. It also specifies user-facing response requirements for completed tasks, which annotations could not convey.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact: purpose, repeated-call behavior, continuation-template caveat, and final response expectation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a waiting tool with a full schema and output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: it tells the agent how to poll, what not to resubmit, and how to present the final result. Nothing necessary to invoke it correctly is left unexplained.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the taskid vs tasktoken relationship and the timeout default. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('wait for an existing Wiro task') and immediately disambiguates from run_model by saying 'without submitting a new model run.' The follow-on instructions about repeating nextAction also separate it from one-shot status lookups like get_task.

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 clearly states when to call this tool (after an existing task exists) and what to do when the task is still running, and it warns not to resubmit the original request. It does not explicitly name a lighter-weight alternative such as get_task for non-blocking status checks, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives profile.

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