wait_for_task

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must explain behavior. It discloses that the tool blocks and waits up to a timeout, but it doesn't specify what happens on timeout or whether the operation is non-mutating. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 one-sentence purpose, a usage context sentence, and an Args section. No wasted words.

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 simple with two parameters and an output schema, and the description provides sufficient context. However, it could mention timeout outcome explicitly; the output schema likely covers return values, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description manually explains both parameters: upid as 'Task ID returned by an earlier tool' and timeout as 'Maximum seconds to wait.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Block until a Proxmox task finishes, then report how it ended' which clearly defines the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks and task_log by focusing on waiting for completion rather than listing or reading logs.

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 says 'Use this when another tool returned a UPID because the job outlived its polling budget,' providing a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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