jons-mcp-java

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a dictionary with 'locations' or status/message 'if initializing', hinting at potential initialization states or error handling. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, rate limits, or what 'initializing' entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the subsequent lines efficiently document inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, and the output schema likely details the return structure, reducing the need to explain returns in the description. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral traits, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the three parameters (file_path, line, character), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the semantics in depth—e.g., what '0-indexed' means for line and character, or how the file_path should be formatted. This provides basic compensation but falls short of fully clarifying parameter usage.

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: 'Find implementations of an interface or abstract method.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the target resource ('implementations of an interface or abstract method'), which is precise. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'definition' or 'type_definition', which might have overlapping functionality in a code analysis context.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must be open or parsed), exclusions (e.g., not for non-Java files), or comparisons to siblings like 'references' or 'definition'. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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