pi_continue_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the call 'Returns identity/status immediately,' 'Restores released sessions after MCP restart,' 'rejects running agents,' and 'never imports arbitrary Pi CLI sessions.' These are non-obvious behavioral traits. It stops short of describing error/response shape, which slightly holds it below 5.

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 purpose, then conditional parameter rules, return behavior, sibling routing and constraints in dense but non-redundant clauses. The final routing sentence packs several ideas together, but every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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?

No annotations and no output schema means the description must carry behavior and returns, which it does: immediacy of return, restart recovery, rejection of running agents and CLI-session exclusion are all covered. A brief note on the response contents would make it fully self-sufficient, but it is close.

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 only 33% (model alone is documented), so the description must compensate. It explains task semantics well ('pass the answer' for needs_input, otherwise the next assignment) and confirms session_id is a 'registered agent by explicit ID,' while model guidance matches the schema. This largely fills the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Continue a registered agent by explicit ID, retaining its Pi conversation/tool context,' which clearly separates it from spawning a new agent. It names pi_wait_agent, pi_poll_agent and pi_get_result, but never distinguishes itself from the confusable pi_followup_agent or pi_steer_agent, leaving some sibling ambiguity.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use rules: 'For needs_input, pass the answer as task; otherwise pass the next assignment' and 'Do independent work or use pi_wait_agent when idle.' It routes to three alternatives with their roles, but does not address when NOT to use this versus pi_followup_agent or pi_steer_agent.

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