p4_stream_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool shows a stream hierarchy graph, without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, what the graph output looks like, or any side effects. This is a minimal statement that adds little beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. However, it is so brief that it lacks helpful elaboration, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only a four-word description, the tool lacks essential context. There is no indication of what the 'graph' output looks like (e.g., ASCII, JSON), whether both parameters are required or mutually exclusive, or any prerequisites for using the tool. This is insufficient for a tool that likely has visual or structural output.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('path' as working directory and 'depot' as depot path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics or syntax details, relying entirely on the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Show stream hierarchy graph' clearly identifies the action (show) and the resource (stream hierarchy graph), distinguishing it from sibling tools like p4_stream_list (which lists streams) and p4_stream_info (which shows details for a single stream). However, 'show' is somewhat generic and does not specify the graph format or output style.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_stream_list or p4_stream_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating the intended use case. The only clue is the name and description, which implies but does not explicitly state the purpose.

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