Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a new sheet' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a sheet with the same name exists, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after sheet creation, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the spreadsheet ecosystem. With rich sibling tools and complex operations possible, more guidance is needed for proper tool selection and usage.

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 fully documents both parameters (documentId and name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'standalone spreadsheet' means in relation to the documentId parameter, or provide context about sheet naming conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a new sheet') and target resource ('to a standalone spreadsheet'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.create' or 'spreadsheet.create', which might create confusion about the exact scope or relationship between these tools.

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 spreadsheet and sheet-related tools in the sibling list (spreadsheet.create, spreadsheet.deleteSheet, spreadsheet.listSheets, sheet.create, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 'addSheet' operation is appropriate versus other creation or management tools.

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