Android Source Explorer 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 tool retrieves source code but omits critical details such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., for non-existent classes), or whether the retrieval is cached. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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 implies the 'class_name' parameter specifies the target class but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides (e.g., format examples or scope). With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates by hinting at the parameter's role, but the 'max_lines' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, limiting overall effectiveness.

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 specific action ('Retrieve') and target resource ('full source code for a given Android Framework or AndroidX class'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_class_hierarchy' (structure) or 'search_classes' (searching). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 like 'search_in_source' or 'list_class_members'. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the purpose statement.

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