proxmox_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is an inspection of an asynchronous task, which implies a read-only status check, but it does not mention whether the task may still be running, what happens for an invalid or missing UPID, or whether the call polls until completion.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It conveys the action, resource, and identifying parameters efficiently.

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 single-task inspection tool, the description covers the essential action and parameters, and the schema fully documents the three required inputs. It could be slightly richer by noting what the returned status looks like or that the task may be in-progress, but overall an agent can reasonably determine how to call it.

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%, and the schema already documents node, upid, and endpoint. The description adds context that the UPID is opaque and that the task is asynchronous, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameters beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one asynchronous Proxmox task'), and clearly scopes the operation by node and UPID. It also distinguishes this from the plural sibling `proxmox_tasks`, which presumably lists tasks rather than inspecting a single one.

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?

The description implies this should be used when a single task's status is needed by node and UPID, particularly since `proxmox_tasks` likely handles listing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings or what circumstances would make it the wrong choice.

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