sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing what it detects (cycles) and the output format ('Dependency graph with any detected cycles listed'), but doesn't mention performance characteristics, side effects, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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: purpose statement, usage examples, output description, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words.

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 (cycle detection in dependency graphs), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good context: purpose, usage examples, output format, and application scenarios. It could be more complete by describing what happens when no cycles are found or performance considerations, but it's largely sufficient.

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% (the single parameter 'level' is fully documented in the schema as "'project' (default) or 'namespace'"). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing usage examples that reinforce the parameter's purpose, but doesn't add new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('detect cycles') and resources ('project or namespace dependency graphs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'dependency_graph' which likely shows dependencies without cycle detection. The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 explicit usage examples for different scenarios (project-level vs namespace-level cycles) and states 'Use for: architecture analysis, identifying tightly coupled components' to guide when to apply it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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