p4_review_prepare

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. It mentions the high-level composite steps but does not state whether the tool mutates Perforce state, what side effects occur, what an 'inspection bundle' contains, whether output is returned, or if this involves multiple network calls. This is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters.

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, front-loading the 'composite' nature and then the two-phase workflow. It is efficient and easily scannable, though slightly terse for the complexity involved.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not clarify what 'inspection bundles' are, what the tool returns, how the discovery/acceptance distinction maps to parameters, or what side effects might occur. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at workflow semantics.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly (e.g., user, client, status, changelist). No additional compensation is required.

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?

Description states a specific verb phrase ('discover or accept changelists, then build review-ready inspection bundles') and identifies the resource as review preparation, so an agent can grasp the high-level purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like p4_review_bundle or p4_change_inspect, though 'composite' implies orchestration.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as p4_review_bundle, p4_search_inspect, or p4_change_inspect. The phrase 'review preparation' implies a broad use case, but there is 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.