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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the row count is returned in. The description adds some context about the tool's purpose but lacks details about behavioral characteristics.

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 with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one well-documented parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of output information (no output schema), but for a tool that presumably returns a simple count, this is less critical than for complex operations.

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, with the single parameter 'nodeId' clearly documented as 'Sheet node ID or name.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('number of rows in a Sheet'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from other sheet-related tools like 'sheet.getRows' or 'sheet.getColumnCount' by focusing specifically on row count.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'for planning pagination/chunked reads.' This gives clear context about its intended application scenario, helping the agent understand when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives that might retrieve actual row data.

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