get_latest_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default exclusion of pre-releases, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., if dependency doesn't exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return value looks like (since no output schema exists).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral detail (default exclusion). Every word earns its place with zero waste 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and default behavior well, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced usage scenarios. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the dependency format or pre-release types further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get the latest release version') and resource ('a Maven dependency'), with explicit scope ('excludes pre-releases by default'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_maven_version_exists' (which verifies existence) and 'list_maven_versions' (which lists multiple versions).

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to get the latest release, excluding pre-releases by default). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'list_maven_versions' for multiple versions). The default behavior is mentioned, but no exclusions are detailed.

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