latest_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not mention return format, error handling, network dependencies, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool that could fail (e.g., artifact not found).

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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 is simple, but the description does not explain the return value format (e.g., whether it returns a plain version string or a structured object). With no output schema, the description should at least indicate the expected result. It also does not mention edge cases like nonexistent artifacts. This leaves some gaps for a complete picture.

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 well-described parameters (groupId and artifactId). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does confirm the Maven Central context, but the schema already provides the essential meanings.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest version of a Maven artifact from Maven Central repository'). It is unambiguous and distinct even without sibling tools, fully clarifying what the tool does.

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 implies usage (when you need the latest version of a Maven artifact) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools to compare against, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so guidance is only implied.

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