p4_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately characterizes the operation as a read-only 'describe' and enumerates what is returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, connection/auth expectations, or what happens for an invalid changelist. This is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 one short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase contributes substantive information about scope or output.

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-like describe operation with fully documented parameters, the description gives a useful high-level summary of what is returned. The absence of an output schema and annotations means exact result formatting is not described, but the described content categories are sufficient for an agent to call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the tool description is not required to add much. The phrase 'optional diff content' does loosely map to includeDiff/diffFormat, but it adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema states. This is the correct baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and a specific resource ('changelist') and further specifies the returned content: metadata, affected files, and optional diff content. This level of detail makes it clear what p4_describe actually does and helps it stand apart from inspection siblings such as p4_change_inspect.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose p4_describe over related tools like p4_change_inspect or p4_filelog, and it names no alternative or exclusion condition. The intended usage is only implied by the verb and return-value summary.

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