Circuitry MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the resolution process ('Uses heuristics to match...') which is useful context, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and well-structured. Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, method, and usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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 complexity (resolving user references using heuristics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the output format or important behavioral constraints. For a resolution tool with no structured output documentation, more context about what gets returned would be helpful.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'selected node content' which relates to the 'selectedNodeId' parameter, but this is already covered in the schema description ('greatly improves resolution accuracy').

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: 'Resolve which flow/nodes the user is referring to based on their message.' It specifies the verb (resolve) and resource (flow/nodes), and mentions the matching heuristics (selected node content, node names, code/text content keywords). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflow.getFlowcharts' or 'workflow.getNodeSummary' that might also retrieve workflow information.

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 when to use this tool: 'Call this instead of fetching entire workflow for context.' This gives a specific alternative to avoid (fetching entire workflow) and implies it's for interpreting user references. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings.

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