javalens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the detailed output format (branching points, loops, returns, throws, nesting depth) and listing specific report items. It could improve by mentioning performance characteristics or error conditions, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, usage example, output description, reports list, prerequisite). Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive information about what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and prerequisites. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly mentioning error conditions or limitations, but covers most essential 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description provides a usage example with concrete values but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states about filePath, line, and column parameters.

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 with specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('control flow structure of a method'), and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_data_flow or analyze_method by focusing specifically on control flow elements like branching, loops, returns, and throws.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Analyze the control flow structure of a method') and includes a crucial prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'), providing clear guidance on proper usage context and dependencies.

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