roslyn:get_missing_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that coordinates are zero-based, which is critical for invocation. However, it does not mention side effects (though unlikely) or handling of invalid inputs.

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, using clear headings (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT) and front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the output format ('List of missing members with exact signatures ready to copy'), which is helpful. It does not cover error cases, but it is adequately complete for a simple, read-only tool.

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 schema already describes all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing zero-based coordinates and that line and column refer to the type declaration, enhancing understanding 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 'Get all interface and abstract members that must be implemented for a type.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roslyn:implement_missing_members, which actually implements them, and roslyn:get_base_types, which retrieves base types.

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 includes 'USAGE: Position on a class that implements interfaces or extends abstract classes.' and 'Use before implementing interfaces,' providing clear context. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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