Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Send message' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, whether messages are guaranteed delivery, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined.

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 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste words. While it may be too brief for adequate documentation, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 4-parameter messaging tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what Societies are, what format the payload should be, how priority works, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The minimal description fails to provide the context needed for reliable tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'from_society', 'to_society', 'payload', or 'priority' mean, their expected formats, or valid values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 states the verb 'Send' and resource 'message between Societies', which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't specify what type of message, what 'Societies' represent in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like bridge_receive or bridge_context_share. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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. With sibling tools like bridge_receive, bridge_context_share, and bridge_history, the description doesn't explain whether this is for real-time messaging, queued communication, or something else. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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