pi_setup

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does volunteer the one trait that matters most here: this call does not mutate state. Beyond that it is silent on whether reporting fails when nothing is configured, whether output is cached, or how large the report is.

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 the verb first, the resource list in the middle, and the non-mutating guarantee as a trailing qualifier. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is inspected and that nothing is altered. It stops short of describing the shape of the report, which is the only material gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated report contents add a little value by framing what the parameterless call yields.

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?

"Report" is a specific verb paired with an enumerated resource list (pi, Ollama, configured endpoints, models, context settings), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates itself from mutation siblings with "without changing state", though it never names pi_configure or pi_execute explicitly.

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?

The phrase "without changing state" signals this is the inspection path rather than the configuration path, which implies when to reach for it. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what prerequisite state must exist for a useful report.

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