sharplens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'Get full inheritance chain' and shows an example output format ('MyService → BaseService → ... → Object'), which adds some behavioral context about the return format. However, it does not disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires a loaded solution). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing usage with an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example is concise and illustrative. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and usage more clearly).

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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and provides an example output format, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error conditions. The example adds value but doesn't fully address the gaps.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('typeName' with description 'Type name'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only references the parameter implicitly in the example ('get_base_types("MyService")'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional details like format constraints or examples beyond the basic usage.

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: 'Get full inheritance chain BY NAME.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('inheritance chain'), and method ('BY NAME'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_derived_types' (which goes in opposite direction) and 'get_type_hierarchy' (which might be more comprehensive), though not explicitly. The example usage reinforces the purpose.

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 includes a USAGE section with an example ('get_base_types("MyService")'), which implies usage context for retrieving inheritance chains. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_derived_types' or 'get_type_hierarchy', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The example helps but doesn't provide full comparative guidance.

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