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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying what conventions are checked (PascalCase for classes, camelCase for methods, etc.), the output format ('List of naming convention violations'), and the prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications for scanning all files, or whether the operation is read-only vs. destructive.

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, conventions, prerequisites). Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the USAGE section provides a concrete example, the conventions list is necessary for transparency, and the prerequisite warning is critical. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (code analysis with optional file scanning), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job. It covers purpose, usage, conventions checked, and prerequisites. However, it could improve by describing the output format in more detail (e.g., structure of violation list) or mentioning any limitations (e.g., only works on Java files).

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's behavior: 'If filePath is omitted, scans all project files.' This clarifies the optional parameter's default behavior, which isn't captured in the schema alone. However, it doesn't provide format details like expected file path syntax.

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: 'Check code against standard Java naming conventions' with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'code'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_unused_code' or 'find_possible_bugs' by focusing specifically on naming convention violations rather than other code analysis aspects.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'If filePath is omitted, scans all project files' and 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It also distinguishes when to use this tool by specifying it checks naming conventions, unlike siblings that analyze control flow, data flow, or other aspects. The USAGE section gives a concrete example.

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