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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires a prior action ('load_project'), uses zero-based coordinates (important for correct usage), and outputs parsed Javadoc. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if symbol lacks Javadoc) or performance characteristics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions, output details, and important notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, coordinate system, and output format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the parsed Javadoc structure (e.g., what fields are included), and it doesn't address error cases or limitations.

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 already documents all three parameters (filePath, line, column). The description adds some context by mentioning 'zero-based coordinates' which clarifies the line and column parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parsed Javadoc documentation for a symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_hover_info or get_symbol_info that provide different types of information. It precisely defines what the tool retrieves rather than just restating the name.

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 guidelines: 'Position on any documented symbol' tells when to use it, and 'Requires load_project to be called first' specifies a critical prerequisite. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Javadoc parsing rather than general symbol analysis or other operations.

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