list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions default values and limits (default 20, max 100) which is helpful, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what 'recent' means temporally. For a read operation with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. The two-sentence format is efficient, though the second sentence could be more concise. No wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points for parameters.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a tool with no annotations, more operational guidance would be helpful.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'node' (name of Proxmox node), 'limit' (default 20, max 100), and 'status' (optional filter with specific values: 'ok', 'error', 'running'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent tasks on a Proxmox node'), with examples of task types (backups, migrations, snapshots). It distinguishes from siblings like list_backups or list_snapshots by covering multiple task types, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare with sibling tools like get_guest_status for task-related information. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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