Poll job status from Proxmox

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about returning specific fields (state, exit status, progress, log tail) but does not elaborate on behavioral nuances beyond the annotations. The term 'force-refresh' could be misconstrued as mutating, but overall consistency is maintained.

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?

Two sentences, tightly written with no redundancy. The action and return are front-loaded, making it easily scannable.

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 simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. Minor gaps: it does not clarify that the job must already be tracked, but this is implicit.

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?

The single parameter job_id has a schema description (format uuid) covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('force-refresh a tracked job by polling'), the resource ('underlying Proxmox task'), and the return value ('latest state, exit status, progress, and recent log tail'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job or list_jobs.

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 implies the tool is for refreshing job status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_job or list_tasks. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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