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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that this sets a target for 'subsequent operations,' which implies statefulness and persistence, but doesn't clarify if this affects all tools or only specific ones, what happens if no target is set, or any error conditions. For a state-changing 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly 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 moderate complexity (state-setting with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, or integration with other tools. For a tool that likely influences many sibling operations, more context would be beneficial to ensure correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'docId' documented as 'Document ID to target.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 an explicit target document') and resource ('document'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'documents.getTarget' or 'documents.clearTarget' by specifying it's for setting rather than getting or clearing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all document-related tools, such as 'documents.getByType' or 'documents.list', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'when working with multiple documents to ensure operations go to the correct one.' This implies it should be used to manage document targeting in multi-document scenarios. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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