sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns ('enclosing symbol's name, kind, and signature') and includes a critical behavioral note about zero-based coordinates. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this requires a loaded solution (context from sibling tools suggests Roslyn analysis tools typically do). The description adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, return value specification, and critical implementation detail. Each sentence adds distinct value. The IMPORTANT warning is appropriately emphasized. While concise, it could potentially benefit from slightly more context about when this tool is most applicable.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains what the tool does and includes a critical implementation detail about coordinate systems. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't fully specify the return format (beyond mentioning 'name, kind, and signature'), and doesn't address potential error cases or dependencies on solution state.

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, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds important semantic context about coordinate systems ('Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates (editor line - 1)'), which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it doesn't provide additional parameter meaning beyond this coordinate clarification.

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 information about the containing method/property/class at a position.' It specifies the verb ('Get information'), resource ('containing method/property/class'), and scope ('at a position'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol_info' or 'get_type_members', which may provide similar context information.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for understanding context' and includes an IMPORTANT note about zero-based coordinates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_symbol_info' (which might provide more detailed symbol information) or 'get_type_members' (which lists members rather than containing context). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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