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 discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns a document target, and specifies fallback logic. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in the second. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the return behavior without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (retrieval with fallback logic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what is returned but not the format or structure of the return value, which could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output without redundant param details, earning a high score as it adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and resources ('current target document'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'documents.setTarget' and 'documents.clearTarget' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. It explains what is returned (explicitly set target or fallback to most recently focused primary document).

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 'for operations' and the fallback behavior, which helps understand when to use it (e.g., to retrieve a target before performing other actions). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'documents.getRecent' or 'documents.getByType', missing full sibling differentiation.

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