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 clearly describes the tool's behavior: generating stub code for missing members, using zero-based coordinates, and optionally operating in preview mode. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a code generation tool, the described behavior is reasonably complete.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a purpose statement followed by usage instructions, output description, and important note. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, how to use it, and important behavioral notes. It doesn't describe the format of generated code or error conditions, but given the context of code generation tools in the Roslyn ecosystem, this is reasonably complete.

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 four parameters. The description adds some context about zero-based coordinates (relevant to 'line' and 'column') and mentions preview mode, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific verbs ('generate stub implementations') and resources ('interface/abstract members'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_constructor' or 'extract_method' which perform different code generation tasks. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 instructions: 'Position cursor on class declaration that implements interface or extends abstract class.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool, with no ambiguity about the required context. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the guidance is complete for this specific operation.

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