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. It mentions 'Requires LSP', which adds some context about prerequisites, but it does not describe what the tool returns, error conditions, or any behavioral traits like performance or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary contextual note, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 is an output schema (which should handle return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 3 undocumented parameters, and a purpose that involves resolving symbols, the description is incomplete as it lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, and usage context beyond the LSP note.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what 'class_name', 'line', or 'character' mean in this context, nor does it add any semantic details beyond the schema. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'definition of a symbol at a specific position', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'lookup_class' or 'lookup_method', which might serve similar purposes, so it misses full differentiation.

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 includes a contextual note '(Requires LSP)', which implies usage depends on Language Server Protocol availability, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_references' or 'lookup_class'. The usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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