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 mentions the tool returns multiple data types but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing a usage example. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data types returned) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is returned but not the structure or format, leaving the agent to infer behavior. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 documents the 'filePath' parameter as an absolute path. The description adds minimal value by providing an example usage ('path/to/MyClass.cs'), but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive file overview') and resources ('diagnostics summary + type declarations + namespace + line count'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'in ONE CALL' and listing multiple data types, unlike simpler tools like 'get_diagnostics' or 'get_type_overview'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Get comprehensive file overview in ONE CALL'), implying it's for multi-faceted analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_diagnostics' for just diagnostics).

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