cos_task_dependents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns only direct dependents (non-transitive) and describes the return JSON structure with task_id, dependents list, and count. This adds useful context without contradicting annotations.

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: purpose statement, usage hint, and Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the use case, parameter semantics, returned data, and scope limitation (non-transitive). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero per-parameter description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains `task_id` with an example ('TASK-195') and clarifies it is a task identifier. This completely compensates for the schema gap.

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 returns tasks that declare `task_id` as a dependency, with a concrete example. It also specifies 'direct dependents — non-transitive', which distinguishes it from related tools like cos_task_dependencies.

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 frames the tool for impact analysis with a sample question, providing clear context for when to use it. It notes the non-transitive limitation but does not name an alternative for transitive dependents, so it lacks an explicit when-not/alternative clause.

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