pve_get_node_task_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get task log' implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety, specify output format (e.g., text lines, JSON), mention pagination behavior (hinted by 'start' and 'limit' parameters), or discuss error conditions (e.g., invalid UPID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 'Get task log' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It consists of three words with no structure or front-loading of key information. While brief, it fails to convey necessary details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task log' entails in this context (e.g., execution logs from Proxmox VE), how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances. The schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks essential context for effective tool use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (node name, task UPID, start line, max lines). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining UPID format or typical usage patterns. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Get task log' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_task_log'. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it lacks specificity about what kind of task log (e.g., from Proxmox VE node tasks) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_journal' or 'pve_cluster_tasks' that might also retrieve logs or task information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a node and task UPID), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'pve_get_node_task_status' or 'pve_list_node_tasks', leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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