Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get current execution status' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose what 'current' means (e.g., latest execution, active execution), whether it requires specific permissions, what format the status returns, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a domain with multiple execution-related tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'execution status' encompasses, what values might be returned, or how this differs from other execution tools. For a tool in this complex ecosystem, more context is needed.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Get current execution status' clearly states the action (get) and resource (execution status), but it's vague about what 'execution status' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'execution.start' or 'execution.stop', leaving ambiguity about whether this refers to a specific execution or a general system status.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'execution.start' and 'execution.stop', the description doesn't indicate if this should be used before/after those operations, or if it's for monitoring ongoing executions. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.

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