get_javadoc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals the use of zero-based coordinates and the prerequisite of load_project. However, it does not disclose potential error scenarios (e.g., symbol without Javadoc) or behavior when the symbol is not found.

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 extremely concise, using only three short sentences plus a header. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with usage and output details. No superfluous information.

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 simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the output format (summary, @param, etc.) and important constraints (zero-based, prerequisite). It does not mention error handling, but for a retrieval tool the completeness is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that line and column are zero-based, which clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema's 'zero-based column number' and 'zero-based line number' (the schema itself only says 'Zero-based column number' for column and 'Zero-based line number' for line, but the description reinforces this in a user-friendly way).

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: retrieving parsed Javadoc documentation for a symbol. It specifies the output format (summary, @param, @return, @throws) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hover_info or get_symbol_info by focusing exclusively on Javadoc.

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 actionable usage guidance by stating that the user must position the cursor on a documented symbol and that load_project must be called first. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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