sharplens-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: the zero-based coordinate system (a non-obvious implementation detail that could cause errors), and clarifying it returns only definition location without reference finding. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens with invalid coordinates.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by scope clarification, then critical implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second clarifies what it doesn't do, and the third provides essential usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 navigation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete - it explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and critical implementation details. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or error handling, which would be helpful given there's no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the zero-based coordinate concept mentioned in the schema, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the input schema descriptions for filePath, line, and column.

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 ('Fast navigation to symbol definition') and resource ('symbol'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_references' or 'get_symbol_info' by emphasizing it returns only the definition location without finding all references. This provides precise differentiation within the Roslyn analysis context.

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 implicitly suggests usage when needing to quickly locate a symbol's definition rather than all references, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_references' or 'get_symbol_info'. It provides clear context about the tool's scope but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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