pi_result

Does 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 two real traits: the call does not block, and the trustworthy fields are status, changed_files, and verify. It says nothing about behavior when the job is unknown, still running, or when job_id is omitted, and no auth or error semantics are given.

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?

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is awkwardly worded but earns its place by telling the agent which return fields to rely on.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least cover parameter meaning and result states; it only partly does by naming key return fields. An agent still does not know how to shape the request (which of cwd/job_id to supply, what include_diff does) or what a non-terminal status looks like.

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?

All three parameters (cwd, job_id, include_diff) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. Only "status or result" faintly implies job_id is the target, and include_diff — clearly related to the mentioned changed_files — is never connected to it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb and object ("Get a non-blocking status or result") but never says what the result belongs to — presumably a job from pi_execute, though it is not stated. The word "non-blocking" implicitly contrasts with the blocking sibling pi_wait, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

"Non-blocking" hints that this is the poll-instead-of-wait option, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The second sentence is guidance on interpreting output ("trust status... rather than model prose"), not guidance on when to call the tool.

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