Circuitry MCP Server

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 describes the tool's behavior (creating groups with headers, layout options) and adds context like naming conventions and examples, but does not cover aspects such as error handling, permissions, or response format. This provides moderate transparency but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality and followed by important details and an example. Most sentences earn their place, but the example could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is well-structured with minimal waste.

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 complexity (creating grouped code nodes) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and provides examples. However, without annotations or output details, it could benefit from more on behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure, but it is largely adequate for the context.

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 the 'groups' and 'layout' parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of groups (organized with labels and files) and layout options (side-by-side or stacked), and provides naming conventions and examples that clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. This enhances understanding effectively.

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 creates code nodes organized in named groups with flow node headers, specifying that groups can be arranged horizontally or vertically. It distinguishes from siblings like 'code.create' and 'code.createBatch' by emphasizing the grouping and header features, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 implied usage through an example (organize files by folder structure like 'Controllers', 'Services', 'Models') and naming conventions for Next.js files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code.create' or 'code.createBatch'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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