Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns null if no spreadsheet is focused, which is crucial for error handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what specific info is returned (e.g., document ID, name). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 front-loaded and efficient: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is somewhat complete for a simple tool. It covers purpose and basic behavior (returns null if no active spreadsheet) but lacks details on return format (what 'info' includes) and error cases beyond null. This leaves room for improvement in fully guiding the agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details, but it doesn't reach 5 since it doesn't explicitly note the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get info about the active standalone spreadsheet document.' It specifies the verb ('Get info') and resource ('active standalone spreadsheet document'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spreadsheet.getCell' or 'spreadsheet.listSheets,' which prevents 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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to check if user is working on a spreadsheet.' This indicates when to use the tool—to verify active spreadsheet status. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using other spreadsheet tools if a document is already confirmed active, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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