get_version_info

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a high-level read operation and the optional remote inclusion, but does not mention that by default only installed versions are returned, that results are paginated, or any repository-related behavior. The schema's include_remote description partially fills in default behavior, but the description itself is thin for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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, front-loading the main action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids redundant restating of the tool name or parameter details.

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 presence of six parameters, including two pagination-related parameters, and the absence of an output schema mean the description should provide more context about return values, pagination defaults, and the relationship between local and remote versions. It currently leaves an agent uncertain about what will be returned and how pagination parameters interact.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—mainly reinforcing the 'all versions' and 'optional remote' concepts already present in include_remote. It does not clarify the relationship between 'limit' and 'items_per_page', but the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available versions of an artifact'), and clarifies an optional scope ('including versions published remotely'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_artifacts (lists artifacts) and get_remote_versions (likely remote-only), while conveying the full retrieval behavior.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need versions of a specific Maven artifact. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer an alternative such as get_remote_versions or compare_versions, and does not state when remote inclusion would or would not be appropriate.

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