get_javadoc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses zero-based coordinates and the need for prior load_project. But it does not detail error handling (e.g., invalid coordinates, missing Javadoc) or confirm that the operation is read-only. The description is somewhat vague.

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 concise with a clear first sentence, followed by usage, output, important note, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return value well (parsed Javadoc with specific sections). It also mentions the key prerequisite. However, it omits potential failure modes and does not clarify the behavior when the symbol has no Javadoc. Overall, it is mostly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that coordinates are zero-based and that tool requires a documented symbol. The prerequisite 'load_project' is also an important semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 parsed Javadoc documentation for a symbol.' It specifies the output format with parsed sections like summary, @param, etc. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_hover_info or get_document_symbols, which could cause confusion.

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 a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It also implies usage by stating 'Position on any documented symbol.' However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or offer alternatives, leaving the agent without clear exclusion guidance.

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