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 what data is returned without behavioral details. It lacks information on permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in accessing spreadsheet data.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed cell data. It doesn't explain the return format, potential nested structures, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in complex spreadsheet contexts.

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, clearly documenting all three parameters (nodeId, row, col). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('Get') and resource ('detailed cell info') with specific attributes ('including formula and computed value'). It distinguishes from basic sibling tools like 'sheet.getCell' by specifying the additional data returned, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'sheet.getCellFormula' which might overlap partially.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sheet.getCell' or 'sheet.getCellFormula'. The description implies it returns more comprehensive data but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred or any prerequisites for usage.

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