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. 'Search contexts' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the first two words), it fails to convey necessary information, making this conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.

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 a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no differentiation from related tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 2 required parameters ('society' and 'query') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description 'Search contexts' provides no information about what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the search. This leaves both 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 'Search contexts' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'context_search' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't specify what 'contexts' are, what resource is being searched, or what the search returns. While it includes a verb ('Search'), it lacks the necessary detail to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'context_list' or 'context_get'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to contexts (e.g., 'context_list', 'context_get', 'context_store'), but the description doesn't indicate when 'context_search' is appropriate compared to these other tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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