resolve_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. It discloses that the tool adds dependency modules, checks conflicts, and returns env vars and config steps. However, it does not clarify whether modifications are permanent or reversible, error handling behavior, or any required permissions. The description is moderately transparent but leaves ambiguity about side effects.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds specific details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and outcomes. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool actually modifies the project or only returns information. It also lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and the exact nature of the returned data. This gap reduces 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a parameter description that matches the tool's description ('selected module name array'). The tool description adds context about dependency resolution but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 clearly states the tool resolves dependencies of selected modules, including adding dependency modules, checking conflicts, and returning environment variables and configuration steps. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like list_modules (listing) and add_module (adding a single module).

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 implies usage for dependency resolution after selecting modules, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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