status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (state, turn count, tools, latest text, pending questions) and explains the blocking semantics of the 'questions' array. It also notes that 'toolCalls' traces every tool run in order, adding behavioral depth beyond the tool name. It doesn't mention side effects, but 'check' implies read-only behavior, and the description sufficiently covers operational behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences plus a note. It front-loads the purpose, then details the return fields and the blocking condition. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the call returns and how to interpret the 'questions' array. It also clarifies the nature of 'toolCalls'. Minor omissions like error behavior for invalid sessions are not critical for a status-checking tool, so it feels complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 50%: only 'verbose' has a description; 'sessionId' is undocumented. The tool description does not mention either parameter, failing to compensate for the uncovered 'sessionId'. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid sessionId or how 'verbose' changes the output beyond the schema's minimal hint. With low coverage and no description support, this is a significant 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 states a clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('background pi session'), and enumerates exactly what it returns (state, turn count, tools used, latest text, pending questions). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'sessions' (which likely lists sessions) and 'answer' (which handles questions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives actionable guidance on how to interpret the result: a non-empty 'questions' array means the agent is blocked and must call 'answer'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sessions' for listing all sessions, or 'steer' for modifying a session). The when-to-use context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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