sharplens-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it specifies the return format (list of signatures with parameter details) and importantly warns about 'ZERO-BASED coordinates (editor line - 1)', which is essential usage context not evident from the schema alone. It doesn't mention error conditions, performance, or other constraints, but covers key operational aspects.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and return format, second provides usage guidance, third gives critical implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (zero-based coordinates warning) is appropriately emphasized with 'IMPORTANT:'.

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, usage context, return format specification, and critical parameter usage warning. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination/limitations, but given the tool's relative simplicity and the schema's good coverage, this is reasonably complete.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds the important clarification about zero-based coordinates, which provides context for the 'line' and 'column' parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema descriptions already state for each parameter individually.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all overloads of a method'), specifies the return format ('list of signatures with parameter details'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_method_signature' (which likely gets a single signature) or 'analyze_method' (which likely provides analysis rather than just overload listings).

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 usage context ('Use when you need to choose between overloads'), which clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings, though the purpose differentiation is implied.

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