p4_fstat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get file metadata' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, workspace dependency, or output behavior beyond the main action.

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 words. It is appropriately concise, though slightly more detail about the operation context would be valuable given the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a complex 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only a short phrase. It does not explain what kind of metadata is returned, how options combine, or how it differs from similar file-listing tools. The schema covers parameters, but the operational context is underspecified.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 specific action (Get) and resource (file metadata from depot/workspace), so an agent can understand what the tool does at a glance. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like p4_files or p4_file_inspect, but the wording is clear and not a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as p4_files, p4_print, or p4_file_inspect. The description implies it is for metadata retrieval, but it gives no explicit context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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