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 but fails completely. 'Share context access' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what the response looks like, or any side effects. For a tool that appears to modify access permissions (based on the name and parameters), this lack of behavioral information is particularly problematic.

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 three words, which could be efficient if it were informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient information to guide tool selection or usage.

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 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the name, no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no output expectations. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (id, society, share_with) have any documentation in the schema. The description 'Share context access' provides zero information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to the sharing operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Share context access' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_share' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'context' refers to, what 'sharing' entails, or what resource is being acted upon. While it includes a verb ('share'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'bridge_context_share' or other sharing-related tools.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from similar tools like 'bridge_context_share' or 'context_store'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific sharing operation is needed versus other context manipulation tools.

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