sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the output behavior ('Generated guard clauses inserted at method start'), notes a critical implementation detail ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'), and implies a code-modification action. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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 efficiently structured with three brief, front-loaded sentences that each earn their place: first states purpose, second gives usage, third highlights an important technical detail. There is zero wasted text, making it highly scannable and actionable.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (code modification with specific coordinates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on error cases or what happens in 'preview' mode, leaving minor gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'line' and 'column' relate to the cursor positioning mentioned). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Add ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull guard clauses') and target ('for nullable parameters'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_method' or 'generate_constructor' which perform different code analysis/generation tasks. It precisely defines the verb and resource without tautology.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Position cursor on a method with reference type parameters'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'validate_code' for other checks). This gives adequate guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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