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 queue status' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what format the status information takes. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the minimal action statement.

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 at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, the description is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words on unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.

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?

The description is completely inadequate for a tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'queue status' means, what system it refers to, what information is returned, or how to interpret the 'society' parameter. Given the lack of annotations and schema documentation, the description should provide much more context about this tool's purpose and usage.

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 one parameter ('society') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description provides no information about this parameter - what 'society' refers to, what values are acceptable, or why it's needed. For a tool with undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter meaning or usage.

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 queue status' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what queue or system it refers to. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'bridge_receive' or 'bridge_send' that might also relate to queue operations. The description is a near-tautology with the tool name 'bridge_queue_status' - essentially just restating the name without adding meaningful context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation. With multiple bridge-related tools in the sibling list (bridge_context_get, bridge_context_share, bridge_history, bridge_receive, bridge_send), there's no indication of how this tool relates to or differs from those alternatives.

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