p4_search_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the composite structure and optional components. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the combined output looks like, or how limits like maxFiles affect returned data.

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 concise, front-loaded phrase that wastes no words. Every element—grep, fstat, previews—carries meaningful signal.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description offers only a high-level summary. It does not explain the returned shape, the order of combined operations, or the behavior when optional components are disabled, leaving a critical gap for the agent.

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 input schema has full parameter coverage, so parameter semantics are already documented. The description's mention of optional fstat and content previews merely restates the includeFstat and includeContentPreview fields without adding new cnnections or constraints.

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 identifies the tool as a search helper combining p4 grep with optional fstat and content previews, making its core function evident. It emphasizes the composite nature, which helps distinguish it from sibling single-command tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this composite helper over sibling tools like p4_grep, p4_fstat, or p4_print. It lacks use-case context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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