Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this affects existing cells, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.

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 configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the target, whether the change is persistent, how to verify it worked, or potential error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'target' parameter fully documented in the schema itself ('Execution target: pyodide, this-computer, or eserver:<id>'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 action ('Set') and the target resource ('Python execution target for new code cells'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'codebook.getExecutionTarget' beyond the verb difference, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or consequences. It doesn't mention the sibling 'codebook.getExecutionTarget' for checking current settings or other execution-related tools, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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