roslyn:get_di_registrations

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

No annotations provided, but the description details the output (list with lifetime, service type, etc.) and implies a read-only scan. It lacks explicit side-effect disclosure but is adequately transparent for a scanning tool.

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 with usage examples and output details. It is concise yet informative, though the USAGE lines could be integrated into prose.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns. It covers purpose, usage, output, and use cases, making it complete for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description shows usage with projectName but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's 'Filter to specific project'.

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 it scans for DI service registrations with specific examples (AddScoped, AddTransient, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on other code analysis tasks.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples and lists use cases (understanding service wiring, finding missing registrations, auditing lifetimes). Does not mention when to avoid using it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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