Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a read operation (list/show) and specifies what information is returned (sheet names, row counts, column counts). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and follow with specific details about what information is shown. Zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what information it returns. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or any constraints, but given the tool's simplicity, it's mostly sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides (documentId is optional, uses active if not provided). However, since there's only one optional parameter, the description's focus on the tool's core functionality without parameter clutter is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'all sheets in a standalone spreadsheet document', specifying the exact scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spreadsheet.getData or spreadsheet.getCell by focusing on sheet metadata rather than content, and from spreadsheet.addSheet by being read-only.

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 implies usage when needing sheet metadata (names, row/column counts) rather than content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like spreadsheet.getData for content or spreadsheet.listFunctions for functions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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