pve_get_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get task status by UPID.' It does not disclose read-only behavior, error conditions, whether the status is returned directly, or any side effects, though 'Get' implies a read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it approaches under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with an output schema and two self-named parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer several things from names and sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only references 'UPID' without explaining its format or how to obtain it. The 'node' parameter is not described beyond its schema title, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get task status') and identifies the key input ('by UPID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_get_vm_status and pve_get_cluster_status, though it remains terse and does not elaborate on what a task status represents.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pve_get_vm_status, pve_get_node_metrics, or pve_api_request. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the tool name itself.

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