research_kotlin_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool queries Maven Central and generates specific files, which communicates the main side effects. It does not mention overwrite behavior or whether content is written to disk versus returned, but the generation of concrete file types is fairly explicit.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the main action and key outputs efficiently, though splitting it into two sentences could improve scannability.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the primary source of runtime context. It covers the main behavior and generated artifacts, but it does not clarify what the tool returns or how the optional libraries parameter interacts with targetPlatform, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds useful context about Maven Central and K2 compatibility but does not add per-parameter meaning 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 uses specific verbs ('researches', 'generates') tied to concrete resources (Maven Central, libs.versions.toml, build.gradle.kts, settings.gradle.kts), so an agent can clearly identify what the tool does. It is also easy to distinguish from the sibling tools, which focus on scaffolding, design, diagnostics, or other concerns.

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 phrase 'up-to-date, compatible Kotlin library versions' and the mention of Kotlin 2.x K2 compiler compatibility imply when this tool should be used: when a project needs current dependency versions and a standard Gradle version catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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