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 zero-based coordinate system (critical for correct usage), the return structure (baseTypes chain and derivedTypes list), and the truncation behavior for derived types (via the parameter description in schema). It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but covers essential operational details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output structure, the second provides a critical implementation detail. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (the coordinate system warning) is appropriately emphasized.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and critical usage constraints. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return structure. It could benefit from mentioning error cases or performance limits.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema itself is comprehensive. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get the inheritance hierarchy'), the resource ('for a type'), and the output structure ('baseTypes chain and derivedTypes list'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_base_types' and 'get_derived_types' by combining both directions in one operation.

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 implicit usage guidance through the 'IMPORTANT' note about zero-based coordinates, which helps avoid errors. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_base_types' or 'get_derived_types', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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