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. It describes the scanning behavior and output format ('List of DI registrations with lifetime, service type, implementation type, and location'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, whether it requires a loaded solution, or any limitations on what it can scan.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage examples, output description, and use cases. Each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the usage examples more smoothly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context. It explains what the tool does, shows usage patterns, describes the output format, and gives practical use cases. The main gap is lack of information about prerequisites (e.g., does it require a loaded solution?) but overall it's quite complete for this complexity level.

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% with the single parameter 'projectName' documented as 'Filter to specific project.' The description adds usage examples showing both parameterless and parameterized calls, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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: 'Scan for dependency injection service registrations' with specific examples (AddScoped, AddTransient, AddSingleton). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on DI registrations rather than general code analysis, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives like 'get_attributes' or 'get_type_members'.

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 'Use for:' section provides clear context: 'understanding service wiring, finding missing registrations, auditing lifetimes.' This gives practical guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related tasks.

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