p4_blame

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Show' and compares to git blame, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, line-level detail, authentication needs, performance considerations, or any other behavioral traits an agent should know.

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 clear sentence that immediately states the action and the resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 simple read-style tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for calling it. However, it fails to disambiguate from the closely named sibling p4_annotate and does not describe the return format, which limits completeness in an agent-facing context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the analogy to git blame, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('show'), resource ('file annotations'), and adds the git-blame analogy to clarify intent. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool p4_annotate, which likely covers very similar or identical functionality.

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 about when to choose p4_blame over alternatives such as p4_annotate, p4_filelog, or p4_diff. The git-blame analogy gives a general hint about the use case, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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