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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool switches sheets, implying a navigation or focus change, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether it alters data, requires permissions, or has side effects like updating UI state). For a tool with potential user-interface implications, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function and parameters. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool, 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'switching' entails would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for a straightforward tool.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters: documentId as optional and using active context, and indexOrName as sheet index or name. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating 'by index or name' without providing additional context like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Switch to a different sheet') and resource ('within a spreadsheet'), specifying the method ('by index or name'). It distinguishes from siblings like spreadsheet.listSheets (which lists sheets) or spreadsheet.renameSheet (which modifies sheet names), but doesn't explicitly contrast with spreadsheet.getActiveDocument or other navigation tools. The purpose is specific and actionable, though sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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., needing an open spreadsheet), exclusions, or compare with related tools like spreadsheet.getActiveDocument or sheet.getCell for context switching. Usage is implied by the action, but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.

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