get_all_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering to stable versions, which adds some context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, ordering). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic functionality.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all available versions for a Maven dependency') and adds necessary qualification ('optionally filtering to stable versions only'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering option, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage constraints. This results in a minimal viable description with clear gaps for an agent to rely on.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'stableOnly' parameter's effect ('optionally filtering to stable versions only'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List all available versions') and resource ('for a Maven dependency'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the scope of versions returned. It explicitly mentions optional filtering to stable versions only, which differentiates it from tools like 'get_latest_stable_version' that might return only one version.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('List all available versions... optionally filtering to stable versions only'), which implies it's for retrieving multiple versions rather than checking existence or comparing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings, such as using 'check_version_exists' for a single version check or 'get_latest_stable_version' for just the latest stable version.

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