pi_list_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the response content (tier labels) and scopes results to the current session, but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, errors, or whether a session must already exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by the scope and the useful output detail.

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 trivial zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the scope of 'available.' Minor omissions only (ordering, whether models are session-bound or global) keep it short of perfect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly adds nothing extraneous about inputs.

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 (List) and resource (Pi models) plus the scope ('available for this session') and the return content (tier labels fast/balanced/frontier). The resource is wholly distinct from every sibling, which all manage agents, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is a discovery call for picking a model, presumably before pi_spawn_agent. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note that it takes no arguments, and no pointer to the sibling that consumes the result.

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