Analyze a Maven jar's overall structure and metadata by supplying its group ID, artifact ID, and version. Discover its packages, classes, and manifest details.
Analyze the overall structure and metadata of a jar file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Maven version | |
| group_id | Yes | Maven group ID | |
| artifact_id | Yes | Maven artifact ID | |
| summarize_large_content | No | Summarize large content automatically |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze', implying a read-only operation but never explicitly stating side effects, return format, or any constraints. It also does not mention how 'summarize_large_content' affects behavior, leaving the agent with minimal insight into what happens when invoked.
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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, achieving excellent conciseness.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity with three required coordinates and an optional flag, yet the description provides no information about the output structure, return value, or whether the operation is safe. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate, but it does not. An agent would have to guess what 'structure and metadata' means in terms of the response.
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 explains all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither clarifies nor detracts from the schema's meaning.
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 a verb ('Analyze') and a specific resource ('overall structure and metadata of a jar file'), making its purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_jar', which likely serves a similar or broader role, so it misses the full 5-point bar that requires sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_jar' or 'extract_class_info'. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice, leaving the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.