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 correctly indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no mode is set. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about how the tool actually functions in practice.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the specific possible return values. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it maximally concise while still informative.

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 simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns (the current mode and possible values). However, it doesn't explain the format of the return value, whether it's a string/enum, or what happens in edge cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it could have explicitly mentioned 'no parameters required' to be perfectly clear, but the absence of parameter discussion is reasonable for a parameterless 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 'current Designer mode', specifying the exact action and what it retrieves. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'designer.setMode' by indicating this is a read operation rather than a write operation, and from other 'designer.get*' tools by focusing specifically on the mode rather than active state or design context.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'current Designer mode' and listing possible modes (design, layout, html, preview), suggesting it should be used when the agent needs to know the current mode state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'designer.getActive' or 'designer.getDesignContext', nor does it provide exclusion criteria 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.