raw_check_deps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important because the name suggests a harmless read-only check. The term 'static' is slightly ambiguous, but the side-effect warning is valuable.

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 compact, with only two sentences that cover purpose, argument count, and behavioral caveats. The 'CheckDeps:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves ambiguity about what 'dependencies' means, what the expected outcome is, and what 'inspect the command name first' entails. There is no output schema, so some explanation of expected results would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already exhaustively covers them. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Check dependencies for the current project.' It also adds that this is a static, no-argument Audacity action, which helps frame what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling raw_* tools, but the purpose is specific enough.

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 only usage guidance is 'inspect the command name first,' which is a cautious hint but not a clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use directive. It does not mention alternatives or explain when this tool should be selected over sibling commands.

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