pve_task_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses read-only behavior and pagination via start/limit, which are important. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid UPID), concurrency behavior, or any other side effects. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, with the first providing the core purpose and the second adding pagination and sibling guidance. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no fluff. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how it paginates, and how it relates to siblings. It does not explain error behavior or edge cases, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool, it is largely sufficient. The missing details are minor for this context.

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 coverage is low (20%), and the description adds meaning to three parameters (upid, start, limit) by stating their purpose ('by UPID' and 'paginated via start/limit'). However, it does not explain the 'node' parameter or 'proximo_target' (though the schema describes the latter). The description partially compensates for incomplete schema but leaves some parameters unexplained.

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 tool retrieves a task's log output by UPID, specifies it's read-only, and describes that it returns log lines with line numbers, paginated. It also distinguishes from related siblings pve_task_wait and pve_tasks_list by mentioning their different use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'Use pve_task_wait for completion polling, or pve_tasks_list to find a UPID.' This clearly delineates the tool's role from siblings, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus others.

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