p4_diff2

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two decision-relevant traits — execution happens server-side and no client mapping is required — which directly affect whether an agent can invoke this tool in a given environment. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format, but the verb 'Compare' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

One sentence with no filler; every element ('server-side', 'depot-to-depot', 'no client mapping required') earns its place by adding differentiation. The core purpose is front-loaded, making the definition scannable in a tool list.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, all invocation details are present and well-documented. However, with no output schema, the description gives no hint about return shape, and the only output signal is the summaryOnly parameter inside the schema. The lack of explicit output expectations and named alternatives leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including the summaryOnly default behavior. The description adds marginal semantic value by clarifying that paths are depot paths (not workspace-relative paths), which aids interpretation of sourcePath and targetPath. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured fields carry the parameter documentation burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two depot paths'), and further differentiates itself from siblings like p4_diff by emphasizing 'server-side' and 'no client mapping required'. The 'depot-to-depot' qualifier removes ambiguity about whether paths are workspace or depot paths, making the tool's scope immediately recognizable.

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?

'Server-side (depot-to-depot diff, no client mapping required)' provides clear context for when to choose this tool over client-side alternatives such as p4_diff, and signals it works without a configured workspace. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is strongly implied by the depot-only framing.

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