pi_followup_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the message is queued and only delivered after all work completes. However, it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/terminated session_id), whether the call blocks, or what happens if the agent never finishes.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core behavior and the non-interrupting condition front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema this is close, but the absence of any guidance on obtaining a valid session_id, error behavior, or interaction with pi_wait_agent/pi_get_result (which the agent likely needs to retrieve the eventual result) leaves gaps.

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 must compensate, and it only partially does. It implies 'message' is the follow-up text and 'session_id' identifies the target agent, but gives no format, sourcing (where a session_id comes from), or constraints for either required 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?

States a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('follow-up message for a spawned Pi agent'), plus a scope-defining behavior ('delivered only after the agent finishes all work'). This lets an agent distinguish it from pi_steer_agent, which implies interrupting the agent mid-run.

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?

'Use this when you do not want to interrupt the agent at all' is an explicit usage condition that implicitly routes away from pi_steer_agent. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling or stating exclusions (e.g., what to do if the agent has already finished).

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