The long and the short answer is that this isn't possible. Unlike Java, none of the .NET languages require that functions report a list of possible exceptions that can be thrown (which means that you either have to catch or report any exceptions that could be thrown on functions that it calls). Because of this, there's no generic way to determine an exhaustive list of every exception that a function could throw (I'm using the word function here to cover anything that's written like a function, including operators, constructors, etc.) because you have no guarantee as to the exceptions that could be thrown by what a given function might call.
If you're willing to go in limited, then it's conceivable that you could write something that could scan MSDN for the appropriate article for a given .NET library call and use the list of exceptions there (if any) to recursively establish a list of what could possibly be thrown. This wouldn't, however, cover any third-party libraries or catch any exceptions thrown by the runtime (OutOfMemoryException, StackOverflowException, NullReferenceException [unless you want to take it a step further and have your exception analysis also determine if there is any possibility of a null reference, but this, too, seems impossible to do in a completely generic sense]).
I'm pretty sure that this has been covered a time or two by the C# team (I'd be surprised if Eric Lippert hasn't already answered a question about this on SO), but I'm pretty certain that it boiled down to this: While this sort of system is useful and valuable to some people, mandating its use (and forcing you either to report or catch all possibly thrown exceptions) led to a lot of try { ... } catch (Exception ex) { ... } blocks in order to avoid the housekeeping, and blanket, silent catches are a lot worse (IMHO) than an unreported exception.
