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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this returns all matching nodes or is paginated, what format the results take, whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a parenthetical list of valid types. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality first, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and provides parameter semantics, but lacks information about return format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics. Given the tool's relative simplicity, it's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'type' well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by providing a comprehensive list of valid type values (e.g., 'datagrid' for Sheet, 'code', 'agent'), which clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's generic description. This earns the baseline 3 score for good schema coverage with some added value.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'nodes of a specific type', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from general listing tools like 'nodes.list' by specifying type-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'nodes.search' which might also filter by type, preventing a perfect score.

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 implies usage by listing available node types, suggesting this tool should be used when you need nodes filtered by type rather than all nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'nodes.list' (for all nodes) or 'nodes.search' (for more complex filtering), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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