javalens-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it specifies prerequisites ('Requires load_project'), output format ('All files and call sites affected, grouped by file'), and operational constraints (depth limits and defaults). It doesn't mention performance or error handling, but covers key usage aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage example, output, options, prerequisites), making it easy to scan. It's slightly verbose but each sentence adds necessary information, such as the depth explanations and prerequisite note, avoiding waste.

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 complexity (impact analysis tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, output format, and prerequisites. It could benefit from more on error cases or performance, but it's adequate for the context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'depth' parameter in detail with examples (depth=1,2,3) and default behavior, which goes beyond the schema's basic description. It also clarifies the usage syntax with an example, enhancing understanding.

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 ('analyze the blast radius of changing a symbol') and resource ('symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_references' or 'get_call_hierarchy_outgoing' by focusing on impact analysis rather than just locating references. The title being null doesn't detract from this clarity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Requires load_project to be called first') and provides detailed guidance on the 'depth' parameter with specific levels and defaults, helping differentiate usage from simpler reference-finding tools. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context implies it's for impact analysis over basic lookups.

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