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 that the tool lists generators and their output, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context about the output format ('List of generators with their assembly info and generated files'), but behavioral traits like pagination or performance are not addressed.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and intended use cases in three distinct sections. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, usage, and output format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance considerations to fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 parameter 'projectName' documented as 'Filter to specific project.' The description adds usage examples that illustrate the parameter's optional nature and effect, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as format constraints or default behavior when omitted.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active source generators and their generated output per project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_generated_code' or 'get_project_structure' by focusing on generator metadata rather than code content or project organization.

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 examples with and without the optional parameter, and states 'Use for: understanding generated code, debugging generator issues,' giving clear context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_generated_code' or other diagnostic tools, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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