list_javas

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden: 'List' implies read-only and the bridge requirement is disclosed, which is useful. However it doesn't say what happens if the bridge isn't running (error vs empty), whether probing versions is slow, or how results are ordered.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the precondition second. Every clause carries information.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is listed, where it comes from, and the bridge dependency. It falls short only on return-value shape and failure behavior, which matter given the absence of an output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The single clause 'with probed versions' usefully signals that version data is derived rather than user-supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Java installations Prism detects on this machine') plus the returned detail ('with probed versions'). No sibling tool touches Java runtimes, so the agent can immediately tell this apart from the instance/mod/lang tools in the sibling list.

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 prerequisite 'Requires a running bridge-enabled Prism' tells the agent a precondition, which implies usage before launch-type operations, but no alternative is named and no explicit 'use this when...' rule is given. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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