sharplens-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (it 'gets' and 'returns' information) and its role in a workflow, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and provide workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded (purpose first, then usage).

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 reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, return format ('list of fix titles and descriptions'), and workflow context. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of returned fixes, but the workflow guidance partially compensates.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (filePath, diagnosticId, line, column). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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: 'Get available code fixes for a specific diagnostic. Returns list of fix titles and descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('code fixes'), and scope ('for a specific diagnostic'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_diagnostics' and 'apply_code_fix' by focusing on retrieving fix options rather than finding issues or applying fixes.

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 workflow guidance: '(1) get_diagnostics to find issues, (2) get_code_fixes to see options, (3) apply_code_fix to fix.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after diagnostics, before applying fixes) and names specific alternatives (get_diagnostics, apply_code_fix), making it easy for an agent to understand its role in the sequence.

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