get_live_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds context about the data source (Google Maven), the mechanism (Android CLI), and the requirement (Android Studio + CLI). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is purely read-only, potential network dependencies, or failure modes. This is a moderate level of behavioral transparency for a fetch operation.

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 three concise sentences: first states the core function, second states the return value, third states the prerequisite. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the data source, the packages, the return content, and a prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete by explaining the format of the returned versions (e.g., key-value pairs), but overall it provides enough context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description: 'Space-separated package identifiers' and the default value. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'fetches' and resource 'live recommended dependency versions from Google Maven', then specifies the exact packages (agp, kotlin, compose, media3, hilt) and the output ('Returns current versions to use in build.gradle.kts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on architecture, UI standards, or CLI guides.

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?

It implies when to use this tool—whenever a developer needs current recommended dependency versions for a Gradle build—and states a prerequisite (Android Studio + Android CLI). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, such as run_android_cli for executing commands.

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