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. It states the tool 'Supports SQLite (file), PostgreSQL, and MySQL,' which adds useful context about supported database types. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only test or if it modifies anything, what the output looks like (success/failure indicators), error handling, or any authentication/rate limit implications. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential context about supported databases. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (a database connection tool with 7 parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful test, what output to expect, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., which are required for each database type). For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'connection' is for 'file path (SQLite)' and lists supported database types, but these are largely redundant with the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Test database connection' with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('database connection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling database tools like db_query, db_schema, and db_tables by focusing on connection testing rather than querying or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from db_health, which might also involve connection checking.

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 prerequisites (e.g., when connection testing is needed), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like db_health or other database tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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