generate_dependency_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that indirect dependencies and Modrinth links are included, but says nothing about whether it queries the network, whether it is read-only, whether it writes a file to pack_dir, rate limits, or failure behavior for unresolved dependencies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical enumerates the notable output contents. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than trimmed.

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, the description should describe the return shape; it names two fields (project names, Modrinth links) but not the overall structure or format, and it is ambiguous whether the list is written to disk or returned. For a generation tool this leaves an important gap.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description already covers it at 100%. The description adds only marginal context ('已安装的模组' as the source of truth), and does not clarify path format, relative vs absolute, or whether the directory must contain a manifest.

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 states a specific verb (生成/generate) and resource (依赖清单/dependency list) and clarifies the input source (整合包中已安装的模组). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling resolve_dependencies, which likely has overlapping purpose, so the agent cannot route between the two on the description alone.

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 phrase '根据整合包中已安装的模组' implies this should be run against an existing pack with mods already present, which hints at usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus resolve_dependencies or check_pack_compatibility, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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