pi_get_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the differing return body per terminal state, the exact non-final payload ({ready:false,reason,next}), the guarantee that no progress/question body is ever returned, the side effect that reading acknowledges the unread event, and persistence across release or MCP restart. That is genuinely non-obvious lifecycle and side-effect context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause adds a distinct fact (state bodies, non-final shape, routing to pi_poll_agent, ack side effect, retention). The middle is dense with chained clauses, which slightly hurts readability but not information density.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by spelling out the JSON bodies for each state and the durability guarantee. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. unknown or released session_id) and full field semantics of the done payload, which an agent would still have to discover.

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% and the description never mentions session_id or its expected format, so it adds nothing over the schema's single required string. The parameter name is self-explanatory for a session-scoped call, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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+resource ('Read final delivery') and immediately defines its semantics for each terminal state (done / error / interrupted), which distinguishes it from the sibling family. It also names pi_poll_agent as the tool for the not-yet-final case, so an agent can route 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?

'Read final delivery, without waiting' plus 'Before final delivery exists... use pi_poll_agent' gives an explicit when-to-use and a named alternative. It does not mention pi_wait_agent or when blocking would be preferable, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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