Pi Agents

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

The description discloses persistence across MCP requests, pool-to-workspace binding by id, and the reconnect reset risk, all of which go beyond the annotations. DestructiveHint=true is already declared, so the description does not need to fully enumerate destructive side effects, but it could still add more detail about stop/checkpoint 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 four dense sentences with no filler. The most safety-critical instruction about explicit root and reconnect behavior is front-loaded, and the pool persistence model is conveyed efficiently.

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 seven actions, 12 parameters, and no output schema, the description only meaningfully contextualizes start and the persistence model. Actions like checkpoint, status, messages, stop, and advance_baseline are left mostly to inference, making the definition incomplete for such a complex tool.

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 schema already documents several parameters such as root, pool, task, agent, message, wait_seconds, and workspace_id. The description adds critical meaning around root and workspace binding, but for a 12-parameter multi-action tool it does not compensate for the many action-specific parameters that remain unexplained.

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 clearly identifies a persistent agent interface and explains the core workflow: start once, then send many tasks. It is not a tautology and provides meaningful detail beyond the title, though it does not enumerate the seven action modes 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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: ALWAYS pass the Git repository root for action=start, and explains why MCP reconnects can reset implicit workspace selection. It does not mention alternatives, but no sibling tool directly overlaps, so the usage context is clear.

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