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 describes the core behavior (replacing lines) and efficiency aspect, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens if lines exceed bounds. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, though the efficiency context is helpful.

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 and efficiency benefit, followed by a precise explanation of parameter interaction. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the tool's niche versus 'setCode' and explaining parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be beneficial given the absence of structured output information.

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 fully documents the three parameters. The description adds some semantic context by explaining how 'startLine' and 'lines' interact ('Lines at startLine through startLine + lines.length - 1 will be replaced'), but this is largely implied by the schema. 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 specific action ('Replace a range of lines in a code node') and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('More efficient than setCode for partial updates'). It identifies both the verb (replace) and resource (lines in a code node), making the purpose unambiguous 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'More efficient than setCode for partial updates.' This directly tells the agent to prefer this tool over 'code.setCode' when only updating a portion of the code, which is clear and actionable.

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