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 describes the tool as a check operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, return format, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and usage context, but lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity. It meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement.

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 any parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, but it's not a 5 because it doesn't enhance beyond the schema's completeness.

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: 'Check if redo is available.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and the resource ('redo availability'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'workflow.canUndo' beyond the 'redo' vs 'undo' distinction in the name, which is why it's not a 5.

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 clear context for usage: 'Call before redo to verify there are changes to restore.' This gives a specific scenario for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'workflow.redo' as a follow-up, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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