get_latest_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read against external repositories; the description's naming of the three remote sources is consistent and mildly reinforcing. However it adds nothing about network/latency behavior, resolution order when an artifact exists in multiple sources, or how the stability filter affects results.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome and with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the result of omitting usage and behavioral detail rather than of tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and annotations cover the safety profile, which lowers the burden. Still, for a resolver that queries three different repositories, the description omits how sources are prioritized and how projectPath interacts with repository resolution, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 all four parameters (groupId, artifactId, projectPath, stabilityFilter) are already documented, including the enum values. The description adds no extra semantics such as coordinate format examples or what PREFER_STABLE actually does, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb (get) and resource (latest version of a Maven artifact) with explicit scope (Maven Central, Google Maven, Gradle Plugin Portal). It distinguishes itself functionally from siblings like check_version_exists or compare_dependency_versions, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many version-related siblings (check_version_exists, compare_dependency_versions, check_version_compatibility). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of how repository sources interact are given.

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