Java Decompiler MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the download action but doesn't cover critical aspects: where the tool is downloaded from (e.g., a remote repository), authentication needs, network dependencies, error handling, or what '下载结果信息' (download result information) entails. For a tool that likely involves external resources and file system changes, this is insufficient transparency.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the main action. While efficient, the return statement is vague ('下载结果信息'), and some redundancy exists between the purpose and parameter sections, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (download operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the parameter but lacks behavioral details like source location or error conditions. With no annotations and an output schema, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'target_dir', explaining it as the download target directory with a default to the current working directory. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Target Dir' without explanation), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., path validity), keeping it at 4.

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 action ('下载' meaning 'download') and the resource ('CFR 反编译器' meaning 'CFR decompiler'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_cfr_status' or decompilation tools by focusing on downloading the tool itself rather than using it. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-sibling download tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether CFR needs to be installed first), when this is necessary compared to using existing installations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'check_cfr_status'. The lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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