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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a base64 PNG image, which implies it's a read-only operation (though not explicitly stated as safe). It doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a simple image capture tool, the description is reasonably transparent.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output format, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return format. For a simple image capture tool, this covers the necessary context without being overly verbose.

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, so the schema already documents both parameters ('maxSize' and 'backgroundColor') with their defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Get the drawing layer as an image') and resource ('drawing layer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'drawing.getActiveDocument' or 'image.create'. It uses precise terminology ('base64 PNG') and explains the purpose ('for visual interpretation').

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when user sketches an idea and you need to "see" what they drew.' This provides clear context for invocation, differentiating it from tools that might manipulate drawings rather than capture them visually.

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