Android Source Explorer MCP Server

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. While it states what the tool returns (inheritance hierarchy), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, whether it requires specific permissions, or what format the hierarchy information is returned in.

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-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear output schema.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('class_name'), the description doesn't compensate by explaining what format the class name should be in (fully qualified name, simple name, etc.) or providing examples. The baseline is 3 since there's only one parameter.

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 ('inheritance hierarchy for a class'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_type_info' or 'lookup_class', which might also provide related information about classes.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_type_info', 'lookup_class', and 'list_class_members' available, there's no indication of when this specific hierarchy-focused tool is preferred over those other options.

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