pve_list_node_tasks

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. 'List node tasks' gives no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, output format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. This leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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?

While extremely concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful context that would help an agent, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' are, how results are structured, what permissions are needed, or when to use filtering parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as explaining what 'node' refers to or how filtering works. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'List node tasks' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_tasks'. While it indicates a listing action, it lacks specificity about what 'tasks' are (e.g., background jobs, operations) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_tasks' or 'pve_get_node_task_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_tasks' for cluster-wide tasks or 'pve_get_node_task_status' for individual task details, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for filtering tasks.

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