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 does well. It discloses the preview/apply workflow, zero-based coordinate system, and output format (oldSignature, newSignature, call sites). It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but covers core behavioral aspects thoroughly.

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 clear sections (ACTIONS, WORKFLOW, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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 complex refactoring tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about workflow, coordinate system, and output format. It could potentially mention error handling or limitations, but covers the essential usage pattern comprehensively given the tool's complexity.

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 context about zero-based coordinates and the preview parameter's role in the workflow, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already specifies for individual parameters.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Change') and resource ('method signature'), then specifies the scope ('preview impact on all call sites'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_symbol' by focusing specifically on method signature modifications rather than general symbol renaming.

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 explicitly outlines a three-step workflow with clear guidance: first call with preview=true (default), review changes, then call with preview=false to apply. It also lists specific actions (add, remove, rename, reorder parameters) that define when this tool is appropriate.

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