check_version_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Verify' implies a read-only check, the description doesn't specify what constitutes 'exists' (e.g., in a repository, locally cached, etc.), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple verification tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important contextual details. It doesn't explain what the verification checks against (e.g., Maven Central repository), what the return value indicates (boolean, status code, etc.), or error handling. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for full operational context.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.

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 specific action ('Verify if exists') and resource ('specific version for a Maven dependency'), using precise terminology. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (compare_versions, get_all_versions, get_latest_stable_version) by focusing on existence checking rather than comparison or retrieval operations.

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 usage context through the phrase 'specific version,' suggesting this tool is for checking existence of particular versions rather than retrieving version lists or comparing versions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_versions or get_latest_stable_version, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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