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 that the tool outputs 'Source folders, libraries, and classpath containers,' which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 appropriately sized, using bullet points and clear sections (e.g., 'USAGE:', 'OUTPUT:'). It avoids unnecessary fluff, with every sentence adding value (e.g., stating prerequisites and usefulness). However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the usage and output details into the initial purpose statement for better flow.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, output types, and prerequisites, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. Without an output schema, it doesn't fully explain return values (e.g., format or structure of the classpath entries), which could hinder agent understanding.

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, with clear documentation for all three parameters (includeSource, includeContainers, includeLibraries). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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: 'Get project classpath information' and 'get all classpath entries for the loaded project.' It specifies the resource (project classpath) and verb (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_project_structure' or 'get_dependency_graph,' which might overlap in purpose.

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: 'Requires load_project to be called first' and 'Useful for understanding project structure and dependencies.' This gives explicit prerequisites and a general use case. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_structure' or 'get_dependency_graph,' which could be relevant for dependency analysis.

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