Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output is a 'formatted string' and that it shows specific document attributes, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the string uses, if there are any rate limits, or how it handles edge cases like no open documents. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 explains what the tool does and what information it provides. The second sentence explains when to use it. There's zero 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 that this is a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns (a formatted string with specific document attributes) and its purpose (understanding multi-document context). However, it doesn't describe the format of the returned string or provide examples, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a context-reporting tool, more detail about the output format would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It gets a baseline 4 since there are no parameters to document, and the description focuses on what the tool does rather than trying to explain parameters that don't exist.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a formatted string listing open documents for system prompts' with specific details about what information it shows (document names, types, panes, current target). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like documents.list by specifying the formatted output for system prompts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all document-related siblings.

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 guidance: 'Use this to understand the multi-document context' suggests it's for getting contextual awareness rather than raw document data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like documents.list or documents.getByType, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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