fix_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'automatically', hinting at automation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's destructive (modifies files), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. For a tool that likely modifies task dependencies, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Fix invalid dependencies'), and 'automatically' adds useful context without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely performs mutations (fixing dependencies), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (file, projectRoot, tag). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters relate to fixing dependencies (e.g., if 'tag' limits scope). Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Fix invalid dependencies in tasks automatically' clearly states the action (fix), target (invalid dependencies), and scope (in tasks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_dependency' or 'remove_dependency' by focusing on fixing rather than adding/removing. However, it doesn't specify what makes dependencies 'invalid' or the exact mechanism, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 'validate_dependencies' or 'add_dependency'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after validation fails) or exclusions (e.g., for manual fixes). Usage is implied only by the verb 'fix', but no explicit context is given.

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