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 clearly states the read-only nature ('Get') and the return behavior ('Returns null if cell has no formula'), which are helpful. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid documentId), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements that would be valuable for an agent.

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 two clear sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the null return behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does and its return behavior. However, it lacks context about error handling, the meaning of 'standalone spreadsheet', and how this differs from similar tools in the sibling list, leaving some gaps for agent understanding.

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 all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'standalone spreadsheet' means for documentId selection or how sheetIndex interacts with the active sheet). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

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 action ('Get the formula'), target resource ('from a cell in a standalone spreadsheet'), and outcome ('Returns null if cell has no formula'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'spreadsheet.getCell' or 'sheet.getCellFormula' by focusing exclusively on formula retrieval rather than general cell content or sheet-specific operations.

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 like 'spreadsheet.getCell' (which might return cell values) or 'sheet.getCellFormula' (which operates on sheets rather than spreadsheets). It mentions 'standalone spreadsheet' but doesn't explain why this context matters or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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