list_tasks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists tasks newest first and explains that tasks are the job log behind every operation. It does not disclose pagination or default limits, but these are parameterized and the description adds enough beyond annotations.

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 concise paragraph followed by a compact Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists each parameter in a single line, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the core use case and all parameter semantics. It could optionally mention when to use task_log for individual task details, but that is not essential for a list tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: limit, errors_only, vmid, and typefilter, with a concrete example for typefilter. This makes the parameters meaningful and actionable.

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 lists recent Proxmox tasks and frames it as the job log behind operations, with the specific use case of diagnosing failures. It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like task_log or wait_for_task, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to find out what happened and why something failed.' It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance.

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