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 symbols with attributes) and provides usage examples that clarify its behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance implications with large solutions or what happens when no symbols 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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a practical USAGE section with bullet-point examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and how to use it. The examples cover common use cases and parameter combinations. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or what happens when no results are found.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description provides usage examples that illustrate parameter values but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all symbols with specific attributes'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_attribute_usages' by focusing on retrieving symbols that have certain attributes rather than finding where attributes are used.

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 USAGE section provides explicit examples of when to use this tool, including specific scenarios like finding obsolete or serializable attributes, and demonstrates how to scope searches to projects or files. This gives clear guidance on practical applications without needing to reference alternatives.

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