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. 'Get message history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, data format, or whether it retrieves real-time or historical data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Get message history,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and clarity within its minimal structure.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description provides no information about the two parameters ('society' and 'limit'), and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'society' refers to (e.g., a group, context, or identifier) or how 'limit' affects the output, leaving parameter meaning unclear.

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 'Get message history' clearly states the action (get) and resource (message history), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'message history' refers to (e.g., chat messages, system messages) and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'bridge_receive' or 'bridge_send', which might handle similar messaging functions.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference any of the many sibling tools that might overlap in functionality (e.g., 'bridge_context_get', 'bridge_receive', or general history/log tools like 'git_log' or 'log_search').

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