Miyabi MCP Bundle

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 fails to describe whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or any side effects like data modification. The vague term 'share' implies a mutation but lacks critical details for safe invocation.

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 no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks necessary detail for clarity and completeness.

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 of 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about the tool's behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 required parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'owner_society', 'share_with', 'context_type', or 'data' represent, their formats, or constraints, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 'Share context with Societies' restates the tool name 'bridge_context_share' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action (share) and target (Societies) but lacks detail about what 'context' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'context_share' or 'bridge_context_get', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'context_share', 'bridge_context_get', and 'bridge_send', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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