get_latest_stable_version

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 describes the filtering logic (excluding unstable versions) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no stable version exists. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 and includes necessary exclusions without redundancy. Every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope and differentiating it from potential alternatives, 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and version filtering well. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps in 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'dependency' fully documented in the schema as a Maven coordinate. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get the latest stable version') and resource ('for a Maven dependency'), with explicit exclusions that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_all_versions' or 'check_version_exists'. It precisely defines what constitutes 'stable' by listing excluded version types (SNAPSHOT, alpha, beta, etc.).

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying it returns only stable versions, which helps differentiate it from siblings that might return all versions or check existence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_versions' or 'compare_versions', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the version filtering.

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