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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by specifying a 'Maximum output is limited to 25,000 tokens' and warning about 'token limit errors' for large solutions. This covers critical behavioral traits like output limits and error conditions, though it could mention performance implications or default behaviors more explicitly.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it states the purpose upfront, follows with critical usage guidelines, and ends with a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints like token limits. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return structure (e.g., what 'project structure' entails), but the provided information is sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying usage of 'summaryOnly' and 'projectNamePattern' for large solutions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 solution/project structure.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('solution/project structure'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_overview' or 'get_type_overview', which might provide overlapping structural information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it advises using 'summaryOnly=true or projectNamePattern' for large solutions (100+ projects) to avoid token limit errors. This directly addresses usage scenarios and constraints, helping the agent make informed decisions without needing to infer from context.

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