esxi_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the possible task states (queued/running/success/error), adding lifecycle context, but says nothing about polling cadence or whether terminal states are sticky.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and the state list appended where it is useful. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness leaves little room for the routing context an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool embedded among 60+ siblings, the description omits how task_id is obtained and how this differs from the other *_status tools, leaving the definition minimally viable.

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 0% and the description says nothing about task_id — notably omitting that it is the identifier returned by other operations. With a single undocumented parameter carrying the entire input contract, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb (查询) and resource (异步任务状态), so the agent knows this polls an async task. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as esxi_operation_status, esxi_transfer_status, or esxi_guest_process_status, which also report status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other status/polling tools in the sibling set, nor when in an operation lifecycle it should be used. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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