javalens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a 'List of reference locations with context', uses 'ZERO-BASED coordinates', and has a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., speed, limitations), error handling, or output format specifics, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise, with bullet-like sections (purpose, usage, output, important note, prerequisite). Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. The formatting enhances readability without wasting space.

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 complexity (a project-wide reference finder), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, key behavior (zero-based coordinates, prerequisite), and output type, but lacks details on the output structure, error cases, or performance constraints, which could hinder an AI agent's ability to handle results effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (column, line, maxResults, filePath). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only emphasizing 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' for column and line, which is already implied in the schema descriptions. This meets 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: 'Find all references to a symbol across the project.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('references to a symbol'), making it distinct from general search tools like 'search_symbols'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'find_implementations' or 'find_method_references', which might have overlapping scopes.

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 usage context: 'Position on symbol, find all usages' and 'Requires load_project to be called first.' This gives practical guidance on when and how to use the tool, including a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for effective use.

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