get_java_versions

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

The description discloses that it reads a configuration file and auto-probes common locations when no directory is given. This indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full transparency burden; it is mostly transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the parameter's optional behavior without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool's core functionality and the parameter's role. It does not detail output format or error handling, but given the simple nature of the tool and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description explains the behavior when 'mc_dir' is omitted (auto-probing), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify what 'mc_dir' represents (e.g., Minecraft directory vs. PCL config directory) or its expected format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 function: reads the PCL configuration file and lists all available Java runtime versions and their paths. It also mentions automatic probing when 'mc_dir' is not provided, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when Java version info is needed), but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or provide specific scenarios. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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