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 listing the specific dependency types tracked (import, extends, implements, etc.), describing the output format ('Dependency graph with nodes and edges'), and stating the prerequisite. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 examples, output, dependency types, prerequisite). Every sentence adds value, though the dependency types list could be slightly more concise. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and complex output, and the most important information (what it does and how to use it) appears first.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, usage examples, output format, dependency types, and prerequisite. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't detail the structure of the returned dependency graph (node/edge properties). However, it compensates reasonably well given the context.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it provides usage examples that illustrate how 'scope' and 'name' work together, but doesn't add meaning for 'includeExternal' or 'depth'. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 package/type dependencies' with specific examples of scope and name parameters. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on dependency graphs rather than analysis, refactoring, or navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'find_circular_dependencies' or 'get_type_hierarchy' which might overlap in dependency-related functionality.

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 examples for both scope types ('type' and 'package') and states a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, which could help the agent choose between similar dependency-related tools.

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