resolve_dependencies

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 does disclose the key behavioral trait that resolution is recursive and includes indirect dependencies, which is genuinely useful. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how cycles or unresolvable dependencies are handled, or what the caller receives.

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?

One compact sentence with the recursive-resolution constraint front-loaded and the purpose clause trailing. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent but not the return shape, whether it is a flat mod list or a tree with nesting. No annotations exist to cover the safety profile either. Adequate but with a real gap on the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Modrinth 项目 ID 或 slug'. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: recursively resolves a mod's full dependency chain including indirect dependencies. That is much clearer than a name restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling generate_dependency_list, which sounds like it covers adjacent ground.

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 '用于确认需要一起安装的模组列表' implies the usage context: pre-install verification. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus generate_dependency_list or check_pack_compatibility, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid project_id from search_mods.

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