sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool performs a code mutation (extraction), uses data flow analysis, requires zero-based coordinates, and outlines a two-step workflow (preview then apply). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or performance considerations, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, WORKFLOW, IMPORTANT), each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a code refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, workflow, and critical details like zero-based coordinates. However, it lacks information on output structure (though it hints at it) and potential errors or limitations, which could be important for an AI agent to handle edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as implying that 'startLine' and 'endLine' must contain complete statements and that coordinates are zero-based, but this is limited. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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 ('extract selected statements into a new method') and resource (code within a method), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_interface' or 'extract_variable'. It also mentions using data flow analysis, which adds specificity about how the extraction is performed.

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 on when to use the tool (e.g., specifying line ranges inside a method and the workflow steps), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is practical 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.