pi_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only operation, but the definition does not say whether it returns all tracked jobs or only active ones, whether results are paginated, or what state a "tracked job" must be in to appear. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions rather than because nothing more needed saying.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about return contents, filtering behavior, and job lifecycle states. A list tool of this kind needs at least a note on what a tracked job is and how cwd affects the result set.

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 0% and the description never mentions cwd, so it is unclear whether cwd scopes the listing to a workspace directory, is required to resolve the workspace, or is merely an optional override. The parameter name is suggestive but the semantics of filtering versus context resolution are left entirely unstated.

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?

"List tracked jobs for a workspace" states a specific verb (list) and resource (tracked jobs) with a scope qualifier. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like pi_cancel and pi_execute, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with pi_result or pi_wait, which also surface job information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus pi_result or pi_wait, nor any stated prerequisites such as whether a job must be running or whether a workspace must be configured via pi_configure. The agent must infer the selection rule from tool names alone.

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