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 communicates the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Find'), it returns specific data (implementing types with locations), and it includes a crucial implementation detail about ZERO-BASED coordinates. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance considerations or what happens with partial implementations.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second provides critical implementation detail. Every word earns its place, and the structure is 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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and a critical behavioral detail (zero-based coordinates), but doesn't address output format details, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The mention of 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' relates to parameter usage but doesn't provide new information about individual parameters beyond what the schema already states for 'line' and 'column'.

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 ('Find all implementations'), the target ('of an interface or abstract class'), and the output ('Returns implementing types with their locations'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_references' or 'get_derived_types' by focusing specifically on implementations of interfaces/abstract classes rather than general references or inheritance.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_references', 'get_derived_types', or 'find_callers'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with sibling tools that might serve similar purposes in different scenarios.

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