list_task_dependencies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description respects. The description adds that it lists all dependency types, but does not disclose any behavioral nuances beyond what annotations already imply. With annotations covering safety profile, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 has no output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return format (e.g., list of dependency objects). It does not, and lacks details on pagination or error handling. However, the tool is simple with one parameter, so some gaps are tolerable.

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% for the single parameter 'task_id'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The ID of the task', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List'), resource ('dependencies'), and scope ('for a task'), including types ('blocking, waiting_on, related'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_task_dependency' (single dependency) and 'add_task_dependency' (create).

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 such as 'get_task_dependency' or 'add_task_dependency'. No context for selection criteria or exclusion conditions is given.

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