set_java_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (SDKMAN), available versions, and the intended timing, but it does not describe side effects, persistence of the switch, or failure behavior. This is a partial but not complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

One dense sentence that leads with the action, then gives the mechanism, timing, and a list of valid values. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, mechanism, valid inputs, and usage timing. Return values are not described and there is no output schema, but for a switch command this is a minor gap; an agent can likely infer success from the command outcome.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the exact available versions, which is more specific than the schema's examples. It doesn't add anything about projectPath, but the schema already explains it adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Switch Java version') with a clear method ('using SDKMAN') and temporal context ('before running commands'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling build/test tools, which address different concerns.

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 explicitly says 'before running commands', giving the agent a clear when-to-use signal. It does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no alternative Java-version-switching tool exists among the siblings, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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