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 describes the tool's behavior by stating it checks server status and project state, and outlines the output format ('Server status, project info if loaded, capabilities'). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 purpose stated first, followed by usage, output, and a workflow. Each section is concise and adds value, with no redundant or wasted sentences. The formatting with clear headings enhances readability.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in output. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the output structure (e.g., JSON format), but the provided info is sufficient for basic use.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any.

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: 'Check server status and project state.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resources ('server status', 'project state'), making it distinct from sibling tools which are primarily analysis or refactoring tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential health-related siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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: 'Call on startup to verify server is operational.' It includes a workflow section that outlines when to use it (step 1), what to do next based on output (step 2), and how to use the results (step 3). This clearly defines the context and sequence, with no misleading information.

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