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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions what data is returned, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's cached or real-time data, error conditions, or response format. For a state retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides some context, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally disclose more about the return format, permissions needed, or behavioral characteristics. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth for confident agent usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter requirements (none). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by explaining what state information is retrieved. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CodeBook state', specifying what information is retrieved (cell order, selected cell, execution status). It distinguishes from siblings like codebook.runCell or codebook.addCell by focusing on state retrieval rather than execution or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from codebook.getExecutionTarget, which might overlap in purpose.

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 context with 'Useful for understanding the current notebook context', suggesting when this tool might be helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like codebook.getExecutionTarget or execution.getStatus, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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