validate_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 discloses the non-destructive behavior ('without making changes'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on what specific dependency issues are checked (e.g., circular references, links to non-existent tasks are only implied), error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical behavioral constraint ('without making changes'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and non-destructive nature but lacks details on what specific issues are validated (only implied), error scenarios, or return values. For a validation tool with three parameters, it's minimally viable but leaves contextual gaps.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'tag' interacts with dependency checking). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Check tasks for dependency issues') and resource ('tasks'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'fix_dependencies' (which makes changes) and 'analyze_project_complexity' (which focuses on complexity rather than validation). The phrase 'without making changes' further differentiates it from mutation tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Check tasks for dependency issues') and when not to use it ('without making changes'), clearly distinguishing it from alternatives like 'fix_dependencies' (which would resolve issues) and 'analyze_project_complexity' (which assesses complexity rather than validation).

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