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. It discloses that the tool outputs a list of classes exceeding thresholds with their metrics, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage syntax, output, defaults, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and prerequisites. It could improve by detailing the output format more explicitly, but it's largely complete for a read-only analysis tool with clear parameters.

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%, with each parameter documented in the schema. The description adds default values and clarifies that thresholds trigger flagging, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('find') and resource ('classes that exceed size thresholds'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_unused_code' or 'get_complexity_metrics' by focusing on size-based filtering rather than usage patterns or general metrics.

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 'Requires load_project to be called first,' providing a clear prerequisite. It also distinguishes usage by specifying thresholds for methods, fields, and lines, guiding when to use this tool versus other analysis tools in the sibling list.

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