p4_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says Get information, giving no detail about output format, whether the command contacts the server, what happens with an invalid workspacePath, or whether any state is modified.

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 one short, clear sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose immediately and is well-sized for a simple 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?

The tool has low complexity and its parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what server and client information will actually be returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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?

The single optional parameter workspacePath is fully documented in the schema with its default behavior. The description adds no extra semantic value, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: getting Perforce server and client information. It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from p4_client, which also deals with client information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_client, p4_fstat, or p4_where. The description simply states what it does without conditions, exclusions, or trade-offs.

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