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 does well by disclosing glob pattern support (* and ? wildcards), pagination behavior, output format (list of symbols with locations), and the prerequisite requirement. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most essential behavioral aspects.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, usage, examples, pagination, important note). Every sentence earns its place, though the examples section could be slightly more concise. 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 search tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context about behavior, prerequisites, and usage. It could benefit from mentioning what 'locations' in the output means or typical response structure, but overall quite 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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions glob patterns (already in schema) and pagination (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches for 'types, methods, fields by name pattern' with specific verb+resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_references' or 'get_symbol_info' by focusing on pattern-based searching rather than specific lookups or analysis.

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?

Explicitly states 'Requires load_project to be called first' as a prerequisite, and provides clear examples showing when to use different parameter combinations. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pattern matching rather than specific analysis or refactoring operations.

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