p4_where

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Show', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication/client requirements, error behavior, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, short sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a simple mapping query with fully documented schema parameters, the description plus schema adequately covers inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify what the returned mappings look like or whether a workspace context is required, leaving notable gaps for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: 'files' is described as required and 'workspacePath' as optional defaulting to current directory. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('depot/local/workspace mappings for files'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling p4 tools focused on searching, editing, or submitting, and none of the siblings appear to cover path mappings.

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 implies usage when you need path mappings for files, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as p4_fstat or p4_path_synccheck. It also lacks prerequisites like being inside a workspace or requiring an active client, so guidance is only implied.

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