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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'file paths, line numbers, and code context for each reference' and specifies 'ZERO-BASED coordinates (editor line 10 = pass line 9).' This clarifies the coordinate system and output format, though it doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or potential errors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information (output format and coordinate system) without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and a critical behavioral detail (zero-based coordinates). However, it lacks information on error handling or performance limits, which could be useful for an agent invoking this tool.

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 minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the zero-based coordinate system, which is already noted in the schema for 'line' and 'column'. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Find all references') and resource ('to a symbol across the entire solution'), specifying the exact operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_callers', 'find_implementations', and 'find_attribute_usages' by focusing specifically on symbol references rather than callers, implementations, or attribute usages.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'Find all references to a symbol across the entire solution,' suggesting this tool is for locating where a symbol is referenced. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'find_callers' or 'find_implementations', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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