analyze_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return values (critical path, bottlenecks, etc.) but lacks behavioral details like performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/mutative. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 front-loads the core purpose and lists outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and outputs but lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for scope_id or implications of scope_type choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Analyze task dependencies within a scope (project or task list)' with specific outputs listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'visualize_dependencies' by focusing on analysis rather than visualization, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'visualize_dependencies' or 'get_ready_tasks'. The description implies usage for dependency analysis but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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