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. 'Receive pending messages' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a blocking or non-blocking call, what happens to messages after receipt (e.g., are they dequeued?), or any side effects like acknowledgment. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.

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 just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the core action.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or any operational constraints. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide the necessary context 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?

The description provides no information about the three parameters (society, limit, acknowledge). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only indicates data types without explaining what these parameters mean or how they affect the operation. The description doesn't compensate for this gap at all, leaving parameters completely 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 'Receive pending messages' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what 'pending messages' are or what resource is involved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like bridge_send, bridge_history, or bridge_queue_status, which all seem related to message handling. The description is vague about the exact purpose and scope.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like bridge_history (for past messages) or bridge_queue_status (for queue monitoring). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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