p4_dirs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; 'List directories in depot' accurately conveys a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose output format, ordering, recursion behavior, or how the many optional flags interact, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place by stating the core operation clearly.

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 schema covers all parameter details, but the description is minimal for a tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not describe the return shape of the directory listing or provide caveats about option combinations, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 baseline is 3; every parameter is already documented with flag mappings, defaults, and an incompatibility note. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List directories in depot,' so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like p4_files or p4_sizes, though the word 'directories' provides some distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as p4_files or p4_sizes, and it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative commands. It relies entirely on the schema to communicate usage context.

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