add_dependency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a dependency but doesn't explain what that entails operationally—whether it modifies task files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if dependencies conflict. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the complexity of a dependency management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'dependsOn' or how 'tag' interacts with dependencies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a dependency relationship') and the resource ('between two tasks'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_dependency' or 'fix_dependencies', which would require more precise language about what makes this tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_dependency' or 'fix_dependencies', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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