sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (finding derived types by name) and shows parameter usage, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like: what happens if the base type doesn't exist, whether it searches across all loaded assemblies/projects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 USAGE section with concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence explains what the tool does, and the two usage examples demonstrate different parameter configurations. No 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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic usage guidance but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list of type names? full type information?), doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and doesn't provide guidance on when this tool is preferable over similar analysis tools in the sibling list.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description provides usage examples that illustrate parameter semantics (showing how includeTransitive affects results), but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already state. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Find all types inheriting') and resource ('from a base type BY NAME'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_base_types' (which goes upward in hierarchy) and 'find_implementations' (which finds interface implementations rather than inheritance).

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 guidance on when to use this tool with concrete examples: 'Find all subclasses' and 'Direct children only'. It distinguishes between transitive and direct inheritance scenarios, giving clear context for parameter selection 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.