get_vdi_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the '[READ]' tag adds nothing. The description does add one real behavioral constraint — Horizon tasks are pool-scoped — plus task_id provenance, but says nothing about permissions, task expiry, or result shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the '[READ]' marker and purpose in the first clause, then the task_id semantics. Two tight paragraphs with no filler, though the 'omit it to list all tasks for the pool' clause duplicates the task_id schema description.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations fully cover the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, the pool-scoping constraint, and both usage modes. It stops short of characterizing what a task status looks like, which is the only real gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by explaining the provenance of task_id (from push_desktop_pool_image or a prior status call), though it never mentions the 'target' parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Status of a pool's long task'), scopes it (image push / provisioning), and covers the list-variant. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cancel_vdi_task or push_desktop_pool_image without opening any schema.

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?

It states the two operating modes explicitly (supply task_id for one task, omit it to list all tasks for the pool) and even names where a task_id comes from (push_desktop_pool_image or a prior call). There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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