roslyn:get_instantiation_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns constructors, factory methods, builder patterns, and hints (e.g., IDisposable). It also shows output format. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or edge cases like static classes.

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, with two sentences plus usage and output examples. Every part adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately outlines the output content (constructors, factory methods, hints). It could be more complete by noting limitations (e.g., types without public constructors) but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's value.

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?

The parameter 'typeName' is already described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a usage example but no new semantic constraints or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves all ways to create an instance of a type, listing constructors, factory methods, and builder patterns. It uses a specific verb 'get' and a unique resource 'instantiation_options', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_method_signature' or 'get_method_overloads'.

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?

The description provides a concrete usage example (typeName='HttpClient'), showing how to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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