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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't describe what 'search' entails - whether it's fuzzy/exact matching, case-sensitivity, performance characteristics, pagination, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'layout element', what the search returns (list of IDs, full objects, metadata), or how results are structured. The combination of missing behavioral context and no output information creates significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions searching 'by name or type' which aligns with the 'query' and 'type' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('layout elements'), and specifies search criteria ('by name or type'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'layout.list' or 'nodes.search', but the focus on layout elements provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'layout.list' or 'nodes.search'. It mentions search criteria but doesn't explain when searching is preferable to listing or filtering through other means. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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