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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the search functionality (glob patterns, case-insensitivity), pagination behavior (returns totalCount and hasMore, use offset), and default values (implied through pagination guidance). It lacks details on error handling or performance limits, but covers core operations adequately.

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 specific features (wildcards, pagination) in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it covers what the tool does, how to use it (with examples), and pagination behavior. It lacks output format details (e.g., structure of returned symbols), but for a search tool with good parameter documentation, this is a minor gap.

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, mentioning wildcard support and pagination which are partially covered in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('types, methods, properties, etc. by name across the solution'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_references' or 'get_symbol_info' by focusing on name-based search with wildcards rather than reference tracking or detailed symbol 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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching by name with wildcards) and implies usage through examples like '*Handler' and 'Get*'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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