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 output format details (risk assessment, metric definitions, risk levels) and a prerequisite, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover error handling, performance implications, or mutation effects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 (usage, metrics, risk levels, prerequisite) and avoids redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the prerequisite earlier, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 provides good context: it explains the metrics, risk assessment, and prerequisites. It doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema by detailing all return values, but it covers enough for effective use.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description only mentions 'filePath' in the usage example and doesn't add meaning for 'granularity' or 'includeDetails' beyond what the schema provides. 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 retrieves cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity, and LOC metrics, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file' or 'get_diagnostics' that might also provide code analysis, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 includes a usage example and explicitly states 'Requires load_project to be called first,' providing clear prerequisites. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for basic usage.

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