p4_have

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

There are no annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The wording "List" accurately conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation, and "currently synced" explains the workspace-scoped nature. However, it says nothing about output format, default behavior when no filespec is provided, or potential scale/performance caveats.

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 wasted words. It communicates the exact purpose in a compact form and is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 the low parameter count and mostly self-documenting schema, the definition is adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks detail about the return value, which matters because no output schema is provided. It also does not clarify the distinction from related sibling tools, leaving some context for an agent to infer.

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?

All three parameters already have descriptions in the schema, including the optionality and default workspace path behavior, so the schema makes the parameters clear. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how filespec and filespecs interact or examples of accepted filespec syntax.

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 and resource: "List files currently synced in workspace." It clearly identifies the tool as a read-only inspection command and distinguishes it from mutating sync-related siblings like p4_sync. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to semantically overlapping sibling tools suich as p4_opened or p4_files, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies that the tool should be used to see which files are currently synced in the workspace, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as p4_opened, p4_files, or p4_path_synccheck. It provides a clear functional context but no exclusions or alternative routing criteria.

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