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. While it implies a read-only operation ('Get'), it does not specify whether this requires permissions, how frequently it can be called, what format the output takes, or if it impacts system performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get Claude Code session details') and specifies the key data points ('processes, CPU, and memory usage'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, usage context, or behavioral traits, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. It meets the minimum viable threshold without being comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is warranted as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Claude Code session details'), including what information is retrieved ('processes, CPU, and memory usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'claude_status' or 'claude_config' by focusing on session-level performance metrics rather than general status or configuration.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to related tools like 'claude_status', 'process_info', or 'resource_cpu', leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases independently.

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