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 describes the action ('extract an expression to a local variable') and output ('Expression extracted to a new local variable'), which covers the basic behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens with the 'preview' parameter beyond its existence in the schema.

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 perfectly structured with three clear sections (purpose, usage, important note) in just four sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 code refactoring tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the essential context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and clarifies the critical coordinate system detail. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error handling, but given the complexity level and 100% schema coverage, this is reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying the coordinate system ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates') which provides important context for the line/column parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 an expression to a local variable') and resource ('expression'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'extract_method' or 'inline_variable'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit usage instructions ('Position cursor on or select an expression') and clarifies the coordinate system ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'), which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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