cos_task_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the bar for safety disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only direct dependencies and describes the return structure (JSON with task_id, dependencies list, and count), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized, leading with the main purpose, followed by usage and behavioral notes, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary details or repetition are present.

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?

For a simple read-only query tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to use it, what it returns, how the parameter is formatted, and the direct-only limitation. No significant behavioral or usage gaps remain.

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 coverage for parameters is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'task_id' is a task identifier and providing a concrete example ('TASK-199'), which clarifies the expected input format well for a single-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the tasks that task_id directly depends on.' It clearly defines the tool's scope by noting it returns only direct (first-level) dependencies, which distinguishes it from related traversal or downstream-dependency tools like cos_task_dependents.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before starting a task to verify prerequisites are done.' It also provides guidance on handling transitive dependencies by recommending repeated calls, though it does not name alternative sibling tools such as cos_task_dependents.

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