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 states the action ('Execute') but doesn't clarify what execution entails (e.g., runs code, may have side effects, requires specific permissions, or returns output). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely performs an operation with potential consequences.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity (likely an execution tool with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what the output might be, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'cellId' with its description. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline is 3, but the simplicity (0 params in description, 1 param total) justifies a 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states the action ('Execute') and target ('a specific cell in CodeBook'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'codebook.runAll' or explain what 'execute' entails in this context, making it somewhat vague compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codebook.runAll' or 'execution.start'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the cell must be in an open CodeBook) or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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