p4_streams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List streams' only conveys the basic operation; it doesn't say whether the result is a paginated list, what default filtering occurs, whether unloaded streams are included, or what the output structure looks like. It is not misleading, but it is behaviorally thin.

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?

Two words with zero filller is economical, but the description is under-specified rather than well-structured. There is no place for the eye to land on scope, defaults, or output, so the conciseness is more a symptom of minimalism than a deliberate clean structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, and seven optional parameters with nontrivial semantics (filter expressions, viewMatch, multiple stream paths), the description does not provide enough context for reliable invocation and result interpretation. It also doesn't clarify relationship to p4_stream singular, making the tool context incomplete.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters (max, filter, stream, streams, unloaded, viewMatch, workspacePath). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden.

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 'List streams' has a specific verb ('List') and resource ('streams'), so an agent can tell this is a listing operation, not a mutation or detail lookup. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling p4_stream (singular) or p4_stream-like tools, so it falls just 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like p4_stream, p4_clients, or p4_dirs. The agent must infer that 'List streams' means querying multiple stream definitions, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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