check_version_exists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the resolution order (declared repositories first, then Maven Central / Google Maven / Gradle Plugin Portal fallback), which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first, followed by the resolution detail. The trailing parenthetical is somewhat dense but every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 read-only existence check with an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior (repository resolution order and public fallback). Nothing critical to calling it correctly appears to be missing.

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 documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the role of projectPath in resolving repositories and clarifies the fallback behavior, but adds little meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 (check existence) and resource (a specific version of a Maven artifact), with the scope of the search made explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_version and check_version_compatibility.

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 explains the repository resolution and fallback behavior, which implies when this check is appropriate, but it never explicitly routes the agent between this and sibling tools such as get_latest_version or check_version_compatibility. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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