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 mentions the search functionality and provides examples of pattern formats, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether the search is case-sensitive, what happens when no matches are found, whether results are paginated, or what the output format looks like. The description provides basic operational context but lacks critical behavioral details.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality with helpful examples. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does and how to use the pattern parameter.

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 return values), the description doesn't need to explain output format. However, for a search tool with 2 parameters (one completely undocumented in the description), no annotations, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description provides only basic operational context. It covers the core search functionality but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation and usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining that the 'pattern' parameter accepts glob patterns or substrings with examples ('*ViewModel*' or 'Activity'), which clarifies the expected input format. However, it doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 as searching for classes using glob patterns or substrings, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'lookup_class' or 'search_in_source', which appear to have related functionality.

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 multiple sibling tools that appear related to class searching and lookup (lookup_class, search_in_source, find_references), the description offers no context about when this specific search approach is appropriate versus other available options.

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