roslyn:get_containing_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses the zero-based coordinate requirement, but does not mention other behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance, or error handling. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: two sentences plus an important note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides critical coordinate information. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description specifies the expected return fields (name, kind, signature). For a simple query tool with three descriptive parameters and a clear return description, the context is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds value by emphasizing the zero-based coordinate system, which is critical for correct usage. This goes beyond the schema's description and reduces ambiguity.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'containing member at a position', and specifies the return values (name, kind, signature). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the enclosing symbol rather than other code analysis tasks, though not explicitly comparing.

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 like get_symbol_info or get_method_signature. The description just says 'useful for understanding context', which is vague and does not help the agent decide when to choose it over siblings.

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