pi_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (affects "every Pi worker") which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether existing workers are updated, whether a restart is needed, permissions required, or side effects of changing the model.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter toggle tool, though it is terse enough to leave gaps.

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 simple one-parameter tool this is minimally adequate: the core show/change behavior is conveyed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could have disclosed the reset semantics and the global-effect behavior that currently live only in the schema.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema ("Omit to show; set a new value or reset."). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 dual-purpose verb ("show or change") and a clear resource ("the model every Pi worker uses"). It is distinguishable from siblings like pi_status or pi_effort, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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 signals that the tool both reads and writes, but offers no guidance on when to call it for showing versus changing, nor any prerequisites or timing constraints relative to the sibling tools. The reader must infer the intended workflow.

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