pi_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. Simply stating the action (list) does not confirm it is read-only, nor does it mention potential large output volumes, pagination, or any safety guarantees. The minimal wording leaves the agent unsure about side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output content. However, without an output schema or additional notes, it does not specify ordering, pagination, or the exact structure of the returned list, leaving minor ambiguities.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does identify the resulting data (tasks and states), adding a bit of output context. Given no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'List all pi tasks and their states' clearly names the verb (list) and resource (pi tasks), and specifies the output trait (states). It is distinct from sibling tools like pi_dispatch or pi_send, which imply different actions.

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 implies a global overview of all tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus pi_status or pi_read, which likely handle individual task lookups. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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