pve_get_node_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. 'Get task status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what the response format looks like, or whether this is a real-time status check versus historical data. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for adequate functionality explanation, it scores perfectly on conciseness as every word serves a purpose.

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 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'task status' means in this context, what format the status information is returned in, or how this differs from other task-related operations. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'upid') having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_task_status'. While it indicates a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify what kind of task status is being retrieved or what resource this applies to. It doesn't distinguish this from other task-related tools like 'pve_stop_node_task' or 'pve_list_node_tasks'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be used instead. Given the sibling tools include 'pve_stop_node_task' and 'pve_list_node_tasks', the agent has no guidance on when to choose this specific task status retrieval tool.

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