p4_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation through 'List', which is accurate, and mentions the output includes metadata. But it doesn't add further behavioral context such as default behavior, scoping, or return structure, so it is minimally adequate.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded and the sentence is precisely scoped. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too thin. It does not specify what 'metadata' includes, how the result is structured, or how this tool differs from p4_fstat (also file metadata). The schema covers parameters, but the overall definition lacks enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool with confidence.

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% – every one of the 8 parameters has a description (e.g., 'Maximum number of results (optional)' and 'Filespec to list (optional, defaults to all files)'). The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('files in depot') and notes the output includes metadata. However, it does not distinguish among sibling tools like p4_fstat (which also provides file metadata), p4_dirs, or p4_print, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternatives. It merely states what it does; an agent has no help choosing between p4_files and p4_fstat or p4_print.

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