pi_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is a read operation with cursor-based incremental semantics, but it does not clarify whether events are consumed/destroyed, what the response format is, or any defaults. This leaves meaningful gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the key usage hint about 'since', making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, so the description needs to convey return expectations and behavior. It gives examples of event types and a usage hint, but it does not state what the read returns, whether events persist after read, or how limit behaves. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains 'since' as the latest seen sequence for incremental reads, which adds value beyond the schema. However, 'taskId' and 'limit' receive no additional context, leaving their semantics only implicit.

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 states the verb ('Read') and resource ('buffered events of a pi task'), with concrete examples of event types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pi_dispatch, pi_status, and pi_wait, which serve 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 provides clear usage context by explaining the incremental read pattern with 'since' as the latest sequence number. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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