javalens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the coordinate system ('ZERO-BASED coordinates'), the prerequisite dependency ('Requires load_project'), and the output format ('The superclass/interface method being overridden'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions or what happens with non-method positions.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, output, important note, prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the prerequisite, coordinate system, and expected output. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens with invalid positions or methods that don't override anything, and the exact format of the returned super method.

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. The description adds context about the coordinate system being zero-based, which is valuable, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies for filePath, line, and column parameters.

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 verbs ('find', 'overrides or implements') and identifies the resource ('method'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on inheritance/implementation relationships rather than analysis, navigation, or refactoring tasks.

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: 'Position on a method that overrides/implements another' tells exactly when to use it. It also specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first' and distinguishes the output type from other tools.

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