Wait for a Wiro workflow run

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful operational context: polling behavior, that failed steps are returned, and that media resources should be presented to the user. It does not need to repeat annotation-covered safety traits.

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 action and result, followed by precise polling and presentation instructions. Every sentence adds operational value without repetition.

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 complete input schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: polling semantics, non-restart guidance, debug context, and user-facing media handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for wait_seconds by explaining that 0 means a single check, and reinforces that the same run token should be reused while polling.

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 specific verb and resource: check and wait for a workflow run. It distinguishes the operation from run creation by explicitly saying 'never start the run again', which separates it from siblings like run_workflow and resume_workflow_run.

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 gives explicit polling instructions: call again with the same run token if still running, use wait_seconds 0 for a single check, and never restart the run. This is clear when/when-not guidance and directly addresses the main misuse risk.

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