get_dependency_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (URLs, coordinates, version, links, snippets), which is helpful, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or error cases, but it's largely adequate for its purpose.

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 ('dependency' and 'fetch_version'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of dependency formats or implications of the fetch_version setting. 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 action ('Get') and the specific resources ('documentation URLs, Maven coordinates, and latest version for a Minecraft plugin dependency'), including what information is returned ('wiki, javadocs, GitHub links, and quick-start code snippets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_plugin_project' or 'scan_project_dependencies' by focusing on dependency documentation rather than project analysis or version checking.

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 documentation for a Minecraft plugin dependency is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_latest_versions' (which might focus only on versions) or 'scan_project_dependencies' (which might list dependencies without documentation). There's no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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