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 discloses key behavioral traits: the return format ('Returns list of called symbols with locations') and a critical implementation detail about coordinate system ('IMPORTANT: Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates (editor line - 1)'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it likely is).

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: purpose statement, benefit explanation, and critical implementation detail. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, though the IMPORTANT warning might be better placed earlier given its significance for correct usage.

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-oriented analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, return format disclosure, and critical coordinate system warning. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation and providing more context about the 'symbols' returned, but overall it's reasonably complete given the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained relationships between parameters or provided examples.

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 all methods and properties that a method calls' with the goal of 'understand[ing] method dependencies and behavior.' It specifies the resource (methods/properties) and verb (get), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_callers' or 'dependency_graph' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context ('Helps understand method dependencies and behavior') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_callers' or 'dependency_graph' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

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