latexmk_list_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions using `latexmk -deps` but does not disclose potential side effects such as running the compiler and creating auxiliary files, nor does it describe the output format or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely executes latexmk.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by examples and the command used. No waste; every part earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return format, side effects, or how the tool handles the oneOf requirement when both file_path and tex_content are provided. The schema covers parameter existence, but the description misses behavioral and output context, making it minimally adequate.

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%, with each parameter (file_path, tex_content, working_dir) already described. The description adds context about what dependencies are listed, but does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists all file dependencies of a LaTeX document, with specific examples of dependency types, and identifies the underlying command `latexmk -deps`. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compilation or watching.

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 clearly implies the tool is for inspecting dependencies, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the sibling latexmk tools.

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