roslyn:get_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral context such as impact on solution, required permissions, or rate limits. It does not disclose any traits beyond the basic operation described in the schema.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by four succinct usage examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple query tool with complete parameter schema, the description provides adequate context through examples. However, it lacks information about return structure, pagination, or error handling, which would be valuable for a comprehensive understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds example values (e.g., 'project:MyProject') which clarify the expected format for the 'scope' parameter, but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 finds symbols with specific attributes, and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'Obsolete', 'Serializable'). It is a specific verb-resource combination, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'find_attribute_usages', which may serve a similar purpose.

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?

Usage is implied through examples showing different scopes (solution, project, file) and attribute names. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'find_attribute_usages' or conditions when not to use it.

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