Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('clear') and fallback behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether this affects other operations), error conditions, or what 'clear' entails (e.g., resets to null, default, or recent). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core action ('Clear the explicit target document') and adds necessary context ('falling back to most recently focused primary document') without waste. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool ('clear'), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what happens after clearing (e.g., return value, state changes), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool that modifies state, more behavioral context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.

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 ('clear') and the resource ('explicit target document'), with a specific fallback behavior ('falling back to most recently focused primary document'). It distinguishes from sibling 'documents.setTarget' by indicating this clears rather than sets, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other document tools like 'documents.getTarget' or 'documents.list'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when clearing a target document is needed, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like 'documents.setTarget' for setting a target or 'documents.getTarget' for retrieving it.

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