Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'convert' implies a read-only calculation, the description doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't mention error handling for invalid units, precision of conversions, whether it supports complex unit systems, or what the output format looks like. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by examples of supported unit categories.

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 straightforward unit conversion tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the conversion returns and how errors are handled. The mention of unit categories adds some value, but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (value, from, to) are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the unit categories (length, weight, temperature) which provides context for the 'from' and 'to' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert between units' with examples of categories (length, weight, temperature). It uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies the resource ('units'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'time_convert' tool, which handles time unit conversions specifically.

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 the sibling 'time_convert' tool for time-specific conversions, nor does it provide any context about when this general unit converter is appropriate versus more specialized tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, 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.