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 states it's a listing tool ('List'), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration context, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence 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: 'List formula functions organized by category (Math, Logic, Text, Lookup, Date, etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('formula functions'), with examples of categories provided. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.listFunctions' or 'spreadsheet.listFunctions', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 includes a usage guideline: 'Useful for discovering available functions', which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. 'sheet.listFunctions') or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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