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 return format (name, type, connections) and the tool's purpose (for diagram understanding), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like what happens with invalid node IDs, whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this provides basic but incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the return value and context. There's zero wasted language, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool returns and its purpose, but doesn't cover error conditions, authentication needs, or what 'connections' specifically means. For a read operation with one optional parameter, this is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior ('optional - defaults to all' is in the schema, but the description reinforces this by implying it returns information about nodes generally). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents about the 'nodeIds' parameter.

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 'Get' and resource 'simplified details about nodes', specifying what information is returned (name, type, and connections). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nodes.get' or 'nodes.getByName' by emphasizing simplified details for diagram understanding rather than full node data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling node-related tools.

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 context ('enough for Claude CLI to understand the diagram'), suggesting this is for diagram comprehension rather than detailed node operations. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'nodes.get', 'nodes.getByType', 'workflow.getStructure'). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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