gradle_project_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the scope (one module), the fact that it returns the full effective property set (like ./gradlew properties), and importantly warns that credentials may be included but are redacted for secret-shaped keys. This is thorough behavioral documentation.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then behavioral details. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job clarifying what the agent will receive (full property set, redacted secrets). It covers sensitivity and scope. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., key-value pairs) for even better completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that module uses the ':app' format and that project_dir is optional (possibly set by session_set_defaults), but does not add significant information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dump') and resource ('Gradle's evaluated properties for one module'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like list_gradle_projects. It explicitly contrasts the output (effective configuration vs. task/variant names), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use after list_gradle_projects when you need the module's namespace...') and what alternative provides ('rather than just its task/variant names'). This gives the agent clear context for selection among related tools.

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