pi_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains mode-specific behaviors: auto switches between direct prompt and steering based on activity, and followUp queues until the agent stops. It lacks details on errors or return values but adequately discloses key behavioral traits.

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, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains modes without redundancy.

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 description covers the essential behavior and mode selection, which is sufficient for a message-sending tool. It does not describe return values or explicitly position vs siblings, but the core context is complete enough for an agent to use 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 0%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the 'mode' parameter by explaining 'auto' and 'followUp'. The required parameters taskId and message are inherently clear from the description, so the tool compensates for the schema gap effectively.

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 'Send a message to a pi task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing the tool's function. It also introduces mode behavior, adding depth beyond a simple send action.

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 context on when to use different modes: 'auto' for idle or working states, and 'followUp' to queue until the agent fully stops. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the mode guidance is clear and actionable.

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