pi_poll_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 substantial work: output can stay unchanged while Pi thinks, activity reports latest phase/tool and update time, reading a question acknowledges its reminder while polling does not acknowledge final delivery. It omits error behavior, session validity, and rate-limit concerns.

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?

Information is dense and front-loaded: what is returned, what is excluded, then the two behavioral edge cases and the sibling routing. It is telegraphic but each clause carries meaning; minor terseness ('activity shows the latest phase/tool') slightly hurts readability.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers return semantics, polling/acknowledgement behavior, and alternative routing well. The remaining gap is the undefined session_id, which no other structured field supplies.

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 single session_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never defines it — it only alludes to 'the same ID' in the context of pi_continue_agent. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('read') and enumerates the resource precisely: latest assistant text, compact activity metadata, pending question, while explicitly excluding reasoning text and raw tool records. It names sibling pi_wait_agent, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

It gives a clear routing rule ('When idle, use pi_wait_agent instead of repeatedly polling') and prescribes a follow-up path for the needs_input case ('answer via pi_continue_agent on the same ID'). It lacks guidance on frequency/backoff outside the idle case, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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