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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for planning chunked reads,' which hints at a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds contextual value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., return format, error cases) to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'nodeId' clearly documented as 'Code node ID or name.' The description doesn't add any extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the number of lines in a code node.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('code node'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'code.getCode' or 'code.setLines', which might have overlapping contexts, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 with 'Useful for planning chunked reads of large files,' suggesting a context for when this tool is beneficial. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'code.getCode' for content retrieval) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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