task_status

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that the node can be parsed from UPID, but does not mention return format, potential errors, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more transparent about output behavior.

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?

Very concise with a clear title, single-purpose sentence, and compact parameter list. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 simple polling tool, the description covers inputs and usage context adequately. However, missing a hint about the response format (e.g., status or progress) slightly reduces completeness for an agent without output schema.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'upid' (returned by async write), 'target' (config name), and 'node' (parsed from UPID when omitted). Adds significant meaning beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'poll', the resource 'Proxmox async task', and the identifier 'UPID'. It distinguishes from siblings like task_log or vm_clone by specifically targeting async task status checking.

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?

Explicitly says to use after a write that returned a task UPID to check completion instead of re-issuing the operation. Provides clear context for when to use, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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