javalens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'Lists of methods, fields, and nested types with their details' and mentions prerequisite 'load_project'. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications for large types, error handling for invalid type names, or output format details beyond the high-level categories.

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 with clear sections (purpose, usage, output, options, prerequisite). Each sentence earns its place, though the 'OUTPUT' line could be slightly more specific about what 'details' includes. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job. It covers purpose, basic usage, output categories, parameter semantics, and a prerequisite. However, for a tool that presumably returns complex type member data, more detail about the output structure would be helpful since there's no output schema to rely on.

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 well. The description adds value by explaining the 'Options' section: it clarifies that 'includeInherited' includes members from superclasses/interfaces (beyond schema's 'inherited members'), and that 'memberKind' filters to specific categories. This provides useful semantic context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 all members (methods, fields, nested types) of a specific type.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('members of a specific type'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_type' or 'get_type_hierarchy', which might have overlapping functionality in a code analysis context.

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 clear usage context: 'Requires load_project to be called first' specifies a prerequisite, and 'Provide a type name to get all its members' gives basic instructions. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_type' or 'get_type_usage_summary', but the prerequisite guidance is helpful.

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