p4_opened

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not say whether the query is workspace-relative, whether it depends on the current client, or how results are grouped by changelist, which is relevant context for a Perforce command.

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 only three words and front-loads the core action with no filler. It is concise almost to a fault, but for such a simple read-only listing the brevity is structurally acceptable.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves expected output shape and related-command separation unresolved. It is minimally adequate for a call with zero required parameters, but not sufficient for confident use within a large sibling group.

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 are fully described in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but under the high-coverage baseline it does not need to repeat what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific operation ('List') and a well-defined resource ('opened files'), matching the p4_opened name and distinguishing it in intent from generic listings like p4_files or p4_have. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of full 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over sibling commands such as p4_status, p4_have, or p4_files. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate situation from the name alone.

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