p4_file_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the tool invokes multiple Perforce read-style operations (fstat, filelog, optional print/blame). It does not, however, mention output shape, potential size/performance cost of print/blame, or whether any operation could have side effects beyond inspection.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with no filler; the composite nature and the component commands are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves the return contract and behavioral caveats unstated. The schema compensates for parameter semantics, but the absence of an output contract makes this only minimally 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 parameter names and defaults carry the meaning; the description adds only the conceptual grouping of fstat/filelog/print/blame to the include* parameters. This meets the baseline but does not add substantive parameter detail.

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 clear composite operation ('fstat + filelog + optional print/blame in one call') with a specific resource domain (file inspection). This distinguishes it from siblings like p4_fstat, p4_filelog, p4_print, and p4_blame, which each perform only one component operation.

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 composite wording and 'in one call' imply that this tool is for combined inspection requests, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over the individual sibling commands, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is therefore only implicit.

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