javalens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies 'Uses ZERO-BASED line numbers' (critical implementation detail), lists 'Supported fixes' with examples (UndefinedType, UnusedImport, UnhandledException), and mentions the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first'. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling but provides substantial operational guidance.

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: it starts with the core purpose, then provides usage example, output format, supported fixes, important note about line numbering, and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is organized logically for quick scanning.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the tool's purpose, usage, supported fix types, line numbering convention, and prerequisite. It could improve by describing the return format more thoroughly (e.g., structure of the list) or error cases, but for a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it provides a usage example 'get_quick_fixes(filePath="...", line=10)' and clarifies 'Uses ZERO-BASED line numbers' for the 'line' parameter, but doesn't explain 'column' parameter behavior beyond what's in the schema ('optional, uses whole line if omitted').

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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'available fixes for a problem at position', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_quick_fix' (which applies fixes) and 'get_diagnostics' (which lists problems). It explicitly defines what it returns: 'List of quick fixes with fixId, label, and category'.

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 guidance: it includes a USAGE example with required parameters, states 'Requires load_project to be called first' as a prerequisite, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on fixes rather than analysis or application. It doesn't name alternatives but gives clear context for when to use it.

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