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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results take, whether there are rate limits, what happens with large result sets, or how regex patterns are interpreted. The description is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key conditional behavior. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage but does have an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will document return values, reducing the burden on the description. However, for a search tool with regex capabilities and class filtering, the description should provide more context about search behavior, result format, and limitations to be truly complete.

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 description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It explains the conditional behavior of class_name (search within class vs all files when omitted) but doesn't clarify what 'pattern' expects (simple text vs regex syntax), what 'limit' controls (result count vs something else), or provide examples. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: searching for text/regex patterns within source files. It specifies the resource (synced files) and scope (specific class or all files). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like 'search_classes', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 some usage guidance by explaining what happens when class_name is omitted (search across all files) versus when it's provided (search within specific class). However, it doesn't offer explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'search_classes' or 'find_references', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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