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 what the tool does (finds callers/references), its purpose (impact analysis), and includes an important implementation detail about 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' that isn't obvious from the schema alone. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when no callers are found.

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 extremely efficient - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides essential usage context and an important technical detail. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the most important information 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and includes the critical zero-based coordinate detail. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or what happens when the maxResults limit is exceeded (though the schema hints at truncation).

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 thoroughly. The description adds context about 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' which helps interpret the line and column parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find all methods/properties that call or reference a specific symbol') and resources ('symbol'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'find_references' by calling it the 'inverse' of that tool. This provides clear differentiation within the toolset.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Essential for impact analysis: "If I change this method, what code will be affected?"' This provides clear context about the tool's primary use case and distinguishes it from other analysis tools in the sibling list like 'analyze_change_impact' or 'find_references'.

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