pi_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses rich behavior: required checks are enforced with worker reminders and digest warnings, serial checks hold a project-wide lock and are safe with parallel workers, and Unity projects receive built-in default checks. It also explains that `set` upserts and `reset` drops all back to the built-in default. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear operational 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core concept: it opens by defining the toolbox and check-running contract before moving to locking behavior, defaults, and action semantics. It is longer than average but most sentences carry operational information, with only minor redundancy in the enforcement and Unity-default notes.

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 complex, mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: required checks, serial locking, built-in Unity defaults, and action-specific effects. It does not explain return values or error cases, but those gaps are minor given the focus on invocation correctness.

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 already 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the `action` parameter by mapping `show`, `set` (upsert checks), `remove` (names), and `reset` (drop all, back to built-in default), which clarifies how to use the enum beyond the bare schema.

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 that this is the project toolbox for checks and enumerates the four actions (show, set, remove, reset), so the verb and resource are clear. Sibling tools are unrelated (pi_spawn, pi_dict, etc.), and no other tool in the list manages checks, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 explains that workers are expected to run checks themselves with `check <name>` and describes enforcement and locking behavior, but it never states when an agent should call pi_tools versus alternatives. Usage is implied through the action list and the note about not forbidding workers from running serial checks, with no explicit when-not guidance.

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