Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Get'), supports optional line ranges, and handles large files. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the nodeId is invalid. The description adds useful context 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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise explanations of optional parameters and a clear example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the input behavior well but doesn't describe the output format (e.g., structure of returned code), error cases, or how it interacts with siblings. It's adequate for basic use but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of offset and limit (e.g., '0-indexed', 'returns lines 100-149'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions. It doesn't add info for nodeId, but the example compensates well.

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: 'Get code from a Code node.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('code from a Code node'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'code.getLineCount' or 'code.setCode', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance by explaining when to use offset/limit parameters ('for large files') and the behavior with and without them. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code.getLineCount' or 'code.setCode', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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