pve_task_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns {upid, finished, succeeded, status, exitstatus, timed_out, polls}, explains that 'succeeded' is fail-closed, and that a failed or timed-out task is reported not raised. It also mentions clamping of timeout and interval, and clarifies the distinction from the MCP Tasks protocol.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a list of return fields, and a note about the protocol. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is 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 tool's complexity (async task waiting), 5 parameters (all described in schema), and the presence of an output schema (return fields explicitly listed), the description is complete. It covers usage, behavior, return values, and even distinguishes from a similar protocol, leaving no gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the output structure and clamping behavior, which aids understanding of how parameters like timeout and interval behave. It does not repeat parameter descriptions but provides context that makes the tool's usage clearer.

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 it blocks until an async Proxmox task reaches a terminal state or timeout, then reports the outcome. It specifies it is a read operation and distinguishes itself as the complement to submit-async-op tools like migrate/backup/restore, which return a UPID.

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 states when to use this tool: after submitting an async op that returns a UPID, to wait for completion without hand-rolling a poll loop. It also mentions an alternative: 'Use pve_task_log for the full log.' This provides clear guidance on usage and exclusions.

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