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 adds context about what information is retrieved (context types and HTML component existence), which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover potential behavioral traits like error conditions, permissions needed, or response format, leaving gaps for a read operation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and guidelines, but it's efficient and clear.

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 (simple read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what information is retrieved but doesn't detail the return format or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context on the response 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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 information about the active drawing document.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('active drawing document'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'drawing.getImage' or 'designer.getActive', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 by stating 'Use to determine context (notepad/designer/workflow) and whether HTML components exist.' This suggests when to use it—for context determination—but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'designer.getActive' for designer context or 'html.list' for HTML components.

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