find_spring_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the response shape (coordinates + ready-to-paste snippets) and the backing source, which is useful context, but says nothing about no-match behavior, whether results are live from Initializr, or any network/permission characteristics. A lookup tool with zero annotation coverage needs a bit more than this.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return payload, then the source. Nothing is wasted, though the inline examples partially duplicate the schema and the sentence is long enough that the source attribution trails at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return content (coordinates, Maven and Gradle snippets) and provenance. For a 3-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, the only real gap is unstated behavior when no starter matches the keywords.

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%, and all three parameters (including the build enum and bootVersion format) are documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of English keywords and examples duplicates the schema's 'need' description rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Trouve les starters Spring') and goes further by naming the return payload (coordinates plus Maven/Gradle snippets) and the data source (Spring Initializr). An agent immediately knows what the tool produces, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling get_spring_initializr, which appears to share the same data source.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing 'correspondant à un besoin' suggests this is for when you need to add a dependency, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over search_spring_ecosystem, get_spring_initializr, or search_spring_projects, and no exclusions. The English-keyword hint is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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