getJavaInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists the three detection sources: JAVA_HOME, mvn --version, or PATH. No side effects or authentication requirements are mentioned, but the tool is a simple read-only query, so 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 sentence of 12 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no wasted text.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple info tool. It explains the tool's functionality and detection sources. It could mention the return format, but that is not critical for an agent's decision.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score is 4, and the description adds context about the detection sources, which is helpful beyond the schema (which has no properties).

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's purpose: 'Detect which JDK is being used'. The verb 'Detect' and resource 'JDK' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getMavenInfo by focusing on Java detection.

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 when JDK information is needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getMavenInfo or getProjectInfo. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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