Show or change the reasoning effort every Pi worker uses, or reset it, to tune agent reasoning during Codex orchestration.
Show or change the reasoning effort every Pi worker uses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Omit to show; set a new value or reset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the setting applies globally or per-worker, whether the change is immediate or persisted, what happens on reset, or what the show mode returns. For a read/write configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 that communicates the operation and target without waste. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. However, for a tool that mutates a shared configuration, the absence of behavioral details (scope, persistence, reset semantics) leaves it short of complete.
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 100%, and the schema description already explains that omitting value shows the setting and setting it applies a value or reset. The description adds no syntax, valid values, or examples beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (show/change) and resource (reasoning effort for Pi workers). The dual show/change nature is captured. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pi_model, which could also seem to configure Pi workers, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pi_model or pi_status. The description implies it's a configuration getter/setter but provides no context about prerequisites or when a caller should reach for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.