vm_task_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by explaining the 'gone' state semantics (vCenter garbage collection) and how to resolve it, which is beyond the raw annotations. It also clarifies the distinction between a task failure ('task_error') and a poll failure ('error'), adding useful operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear intro sentence, usage notes, and a return format list. It is moderately concise, but the multiple sentences on 'gone' and the explicit return list add some length. Still, every sentence serves a purpose, so it is strong, though slightly verbose for a simple poll.

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 tool's simple nature (2 parameters, no schema), the description is complete: it explains when to use, what states may be returned, the meaning of 'gone', and the error semantics. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly, and the output schema is absent but the return fields are listed.

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 both parameters (target and task_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond re-emphasizing the source of task_id (from an async write) and the meaning of 'gone', but it does not provide new syntax or format details for either parameter. Thus, a baseline 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 opens with '[READ] Poll a long-running vSphere task by its id', which clearly states the verb (poll), the resource (task), and the method (by id). It further distinguishes itself by specifying it is specifically for tasks from 'vm_delete_snapshot', and the next paragraph clearly marks it as an alternative to re-running the delete. This clearly separates it from siblings that perform the operation itself.

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 instructs when to use: 'Use after vm_delete_snapshot returns a task id, instead of re-running the delete.' It also provides guidance on how to interpret the 'gone' state, advising to 're-list the resource to confirm the final state.' This is a clear definition of its role relative to the delete operation.

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