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. It states the tool performs a rename operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the rename is reversible, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There's zero wasted verbiage—it directly states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 lacks crucial context like what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), side effects, or dependencies. The description alone doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints for 'newName', how 'index' maps to sheets). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('Rename') and resource ('a sheet in a standalone spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'spreadsheet.addSheet' or 'spreadsheet.deleteSheet', but the verb 'rename' is specific enough to imply a different operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having an open spreadsheet), exclusions (e.g., cannot rename the active sheet), or related tools like 'spreadsheet.listSheets' for identifying sheets first. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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