vm_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds details beyond annotations: lists possible states (queued/running/success/error/gone), progress percent, and entity name. It explains what 'gone' means and the appropriate next step. No contradiction with 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?

Approximately 150 words, well-structured with a one-line purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter list, and return description. Front-loaded with key information. Every sentence contributes value; no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It specifies return fields: task_id, state, progress_pct, operation, entity, and error/note. Context signals indicate no nested objects or enums, so the description is complete and sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has two parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well. It explains 'task_id' as 'the task id string returned by an async write operation' and 'target' as 'vCenter/ESXi target name from config.yaml; omit to use the default target'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though no format examples are given.

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 starts with '[READ] Poll a long-running vSphere task by its id (from an async vm_delete_snapshot)', clearly specifying the verb ('poll'), resource ('vSphere task'), and origin context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying directly to an async operation from 'vm_delete_snapshot'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after vm_delete_snapshot returns a task id to check whether the consolidation has finished'. It also tells when not to use: 'instead of re-running the delete'. Additionally explains the 'gone' state and recommends re-listing the resource to confirm final state.

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