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. It discloses the behavioral effect ('Switches to notebook-style linear view'), which is useful context about UI state change. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and follow with additional detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effect, with no wasted text or 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the UI change, but for a tool that likely alters application state, it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., requires an active workflow) or confirmation of success.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied since it efficiently handles the zero-parameter case without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Open CodeBook view') and the resource ('for the current workflow'), with the additional detail of switching to 'notebook-style linear view' that distinguishes it from other codebook tools like codebook.close or codebook.isOpen. It uses precise verbs and specifies the exact UI transformation.

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 ('for the current workflow'), suggesting it should be used when a workflow is active, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools.

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