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 mentions the algorithm (dagre) and outcome (clean flowchart appearance), but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether it modifies node positions in-place, requires specific permissions, or has performance implications). For a tool that likely mutates layout data, this is insufficient 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and outcome. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (a layout tool with potential mutations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand full implications, especially since sibling tools suggest a rich workflow environment.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (nodeIds, direction, spacing) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'nodeIds' interact with connected nodes or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Auto-layout specific nodes using dagre (longest-path algorithm). Positions nodes and optimizes edge handles for clean flowchart appearance.' It specifies the action (auto-layout), target (nodes), algorithm (dagre), and outcome (clean flowchart appearance). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'layout.create' or 'layout.update', which might also handle layout-related operations.

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, such as needing existing nodes or a workflow context, or compare it to other layout-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'layout.create', 'layout.update'). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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