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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool analyzes and fixes layout issues, can auto-apply fixes with 'autoFix: true', and returns 'appliedFixes' when autoFix is used. It also mentions using a selected screen if 'screenId' is not specified. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or what happens without autoFix.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, issues detected, workflow), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and parameters. It provides a workflow and links to siblings, but lacks details on output format (e.g., what 'appliedFixes' contains) and error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and moderate complexity, it's mostly complete but could benefit from output information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the practical use of 'autoFix: true' to automatically apply fixes and return appliedFixes, and implies 'screenId' is optional with a default (selected screen). It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, but the context enhances understanding.

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 ('Analyze and fix layout issues after editing components') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'layout.createSection' for initial creation. It provides concrete examples of issues detected (overlaps, misplacement, overflow, clipping), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 includes explicit 'Use for' and 'Don't use for' sections, clearly stating when to use this tool (after edits to fix issues) versus alternatives (use 'layout.createSection' for initial creation). It also provides a workflow with step-by-step guidance, including when to use sibling tools like 'screen.capture' for verification.

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