roslyn:organize_usings

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

Without annotations, the description provides core behavioral info: modifies file content and returns modified content. However, it does not specify whether the file is saved to disk, if it requires the file to be part of a loaded solution, or if the operation is reversible. These gaps limit transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states the function but omits details like return format, idempotency, and side effects on disk. It is sufficient for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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% for the single parameter (filePath) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 specifies the action ('Sort and remove unused using directives') and the resource ('in a file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'organize_usings_batch' and other code modification tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organize_usings_batch). Does not mention prerequisites or context. A user might benefit from knowing that this is for a single file, and the batch version for multiple files.

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