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 describes key traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires zero-based coordinates with a clear conversion example, and returns specific data (symbol kind, type, namespace, documentation, location). It lacks details on error handling, performance, or rate limits, but covers essential usage constraints well.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical usage notes and return details in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, the second clarifies coordinate handling, and the third specifies the return data. There is no wasted text or 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 complexity of a semantic analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the essentials: purpose, input requirements, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths) or dependencies on other tools like 'load_solution', but it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the zero-based coordinate system with an example, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details for the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the resource 'detailed semantic information about a symbol at a specific position', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_attributes' or 'get_type_hierarchy' by focusing on symbol-level semantic details rather than attributes or type relationships.

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 by specifying 'at a specific position' and the zero-based coordinate requirement, which provides some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_method_signature' or 'get_type_overview', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a loaded solution or valid file path.

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