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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns members with configurable verbosity levels, supports inheritance filtering, and works with various name formats. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions, or pagination details, but covers core behavioral aspects 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage patterns, naming conventions), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about behavior and usage. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what the returned members look like), which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter interactions through usage patterns, clarifying how 'includeInherited', 'memberKind', and 'verbosity' work together, and providing examples of type name formats beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 resource ('all members of a type by name'), specifying the scope includes methods, properties, fields, and events. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_type_overview' or 'get_type_hierarchy' by focusing specifically on members rather than broader type information.

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 'USAGE PATTERNS' section provides explicit guidance on when to use specific parameter combinations, including basic usage, inheritance inclusion, filtering by kind, and verbosity control. It also clarifies naming conventions for type names, helping the agent select appropriate inputs.

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