Summarize a Pi worker's results—changed files, commands, errors, final message, and git status—then verify claims with pi_diff before merging. Use detail=full to include raw events.
Compact report of one worker: files changed, commands, errors, final message, git status. detail "full" adds recent raw events. Treat claims as unverified; check with pi_diff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Worker id from pi_spawn | |
| detail | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 meaningful traits: the report is a summary of worker self-reported claims that should be treated as unverified, and detail=full exposes raw events. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or any access constraints, but the trust caveat is genuinely valuable behavioral 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?
Three dense sentences with no filler; the report contents come first, followed by the detail modifier and the verification caveat. Every clause carries 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?
With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so by enumerating the report fields. The main residual gap is the detail parameter's default/brief behavior and any pagination or size limits on raw events.
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 50%: id is documented as "Worker id from pi_spawn" but the detail enum has no schema description. The description compensates partially by explaining that detail="full" adds recent raw events, but never clarifies the default or what "brief" omits, so the low-coverage gap is only half filled.
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 resource (one worker) and enumerates exactly what the report contains: files changed, commands, errors, final message, git status. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pi_diff by directing verification there, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?
Provides real guidance on interpreting output ("Treat claims as unverified; check with pi_diff") and names the alternative tool for verification. It does not, however, state when to call pi_digest versus pi_status or pi_wait, so the primary selection condition is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.