javalens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (searching catch blocks), output format (all catch blocks), and a prerequisite (load_project). However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error handling, or limitations beyond the JDT-unique note.

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 (JDT-UNIQUE note, USAGE, OUTPUT, Useful for, Requires). Most sentences earn their place, though the 'Useful for' bullet points could be more concise. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with two parameters.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks details about return format structure, pagination behavior, error cases, or performance considerations. The JDT-unique note and prerequisite are helpful, but more behavioral transparency would improve completeness.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (exceptionType with format example, maxResults with default). The description adds minimal value beyond schema with 'Provide fully qualified exception type name' and 'OUTPUT: All catch blocks that handle this exception type', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'catch blocks for an exception type', with explicit syntax 'catch(ExceptionType e)'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a 'fine-grained search not available in LSP', differentiating it from general analysis tools like find_throws_declarations or find_references.

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 clear context with 'Useful for' examples (exception handling patterns, finding handlers, analysis/refactoring) and a prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings, missing full comparative guidance.

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