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 that it 'Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates' (important behavioral detail) and mentions the prerequisite 'load_project'. However, it doesn't describe error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid inputs. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, output, important note, context, prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place, though the 'IMPORTANT' section could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and clear functionality.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains purpose, usage, output format ('List of methods'), coordinate system, context, and prerequisite. The main gap is lack of output format details (structure of the returned list), but overall it's quite complete for this complexity level.

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 all three parameters (filePath, line, column) with their types and descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' which clarifies the parameter semantics, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 methods called by a method (outgoing calls)' - a specific verb ('find') and resource ('methods called by a method'). It distinguishes from its sibling 'get_call_hierarchy_incoming' by specifying 'outgoing calls' and provides a clear differentiation from other analysis tools in the sibling list.

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 guidance: 'Position cursor on a method name' tells exactly when to use it, 'Requires load_project to be called first' states a prerequisite, and 'Useful for understanding what a method depends on' gives context. It also implicitly distinguishes from incoming call analysis via its name and description focus.

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