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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the algorithm used (Tarjan's SCC), what it reports (cycle paths and affected packages), and the prerequisite (load_project). It does not cover aspects like performance, error handling, or output format details, but provides more than minimal transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, it includes redundant information like 'USAGE:' lines that repeat what the schema covers, and the structure could be more streamlined by integrating usage notes into flowing text rather than bullet-like formatting.

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's complexity (cycle detection in packages), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, usage, algorithm, output type, and prerequisites. It lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list) and error cases, but provides enough context for basic use without being exhaustive.

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 documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'packageFilter' in a usage example and implying default behavior, but does not provide additional syntax or semantic details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('cycles in packages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_dependency_graph' or 'find_unused_code' by focusing on circular dependencies specifically. The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 for usage with the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first', which is explicit guidance. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dependency_graph' or other analysis tools, nor does it specify exclusions or edge cases.

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