visualize_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates visualizations in specific formats (ASCII art, Graphviz DOT, Mermaid), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., text, file). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. It consists of one clear sentence that states the core purpose and key details (scope and formats), with no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and 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 tool's complexity (visualization generation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what (visualize dependencies) and how (formats and scope), but it doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format details, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the return type, but it doesn't. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for informed 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'scope (project or task list)' and 'ASCII art, Graphviz DOT format, and Mermaid diagram formats,' which loosely map to the 'scope_type' and 'format' parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents these parameters thoroughly (e.g., enums, defaults). The description doesn't provide additional context like examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: 'Generate a visualization of task dependencies within a scope (project or task list).' It specifies the verb ('generate a visualization'), resource ('task dependencies'), and scope ('project or task list'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_dependencies' or 'update_task_dependencies', which is why it's not a 5.

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. It mentions the scope types and formats but doesn't indicate scenarios where this visualization is preferred over other dependency-related tools (e.g., 'analyze_dependencies' for analysis, 'update_task_dependencies' for modifications). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving usage context implied at best.

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