pi_running

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the live-only nature of the data, the rpc-transport limitation, the unavailability of 'print' runs during execution, and the fields returned. It does not spell out that the call is read-only, but 'List' strongly implies it, and the caveats add meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a necessary caveat or alternative. The description is compact but information-dense.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the live scope, the transport restriction, the return fields, and the alternative for historical data. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description adds value by itemizing the returned fields (session id, working directory, elapsed time, messages sent in), which helps the agent understand the tool's output even in the absence of an output schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('pi turns executing at this moment'), and clarifies the scope by saying 'the ones pi_send can reach.' It also distinguishes itself from pi_sessions explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart without reading schemas.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: for currently executing pi turns over rpc-transport. It explicitly excludes 'print' runs as unreachable mid-run and directs the agent to pi_sessions for past sessions, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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