Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what happens if the cell has no formula, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 simple read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally explain what gets returned (just the formula string? error if no formula?) and any constraints. The completeness is borderline given the tool's simplicity but leaves questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('formula string for a cell'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.getCell' or 'spreadsheet.getCellFormula', which appear to serve similar functions in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar tools in the sibling list (sheet.getCell, spreadsheet.getCellFormula), there's no indication of which context or system this tool operates within or when to choose it over other formula-retrieval tools.

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