pve_task_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes blocking behavior, timeout and interval clamping (1..600s, 1..60s), fail-closed logic for 'succeeded', and that failed/timed-out tasks are reported not raised. It also labels the tool as '(read)' implying no side effects. Minor missing: doesn't state permissions or potential impact, but the read hint and blocking nature suffice.

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 concise yet comprehensive: first paragraph states core purpose and usage context, second details return values and parameter constraints, third clarifies the UPID model. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well 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 the output schema exists, the description still provides valuable return shape info and error handling details. It mentions timeouts, clamping, and suggests sibling tool pve_task_log. However, it does not explain the 'node' parameter or the 'polls' field in the return. Overall quite complete but with minor gaps.

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 only 20%, so description must compensate. It adds constraints for timeout and interval (clamped ranges), and explains upid as 'UPID' from submit tools. However, node parameter is not mentioned, and proximo_target is only described in schema. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough for all 5 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Block until an async Proxmox task reaches a terminal state — or the timeout — then report the outcome'. It identifies the resource ('async Proxmox task') and distinguishes from siblings like pve_task_status (poll loop) and pve_task_log (full log). The verb 'Block' and the outcome reporting are precise.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: as an 'ergonomic complement to the submit-an-async-op tools' that return a UPID, avoiding hand-rolling a poll loop. It also suggests using pve_task_log for the full log, providing a clear alternative. No ambiguity about its usage context.

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