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 checks health metrics but doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., whether it performs active queries, returns cached data, or has side effects), potential errors (e.g., connection failures), or output format (critical since there's no output schema). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check database health') and lists key aspects without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying the scope (connection, size, performance stats), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. There's no redundancy or fluff, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.

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 complexity (7 parameters, diagnostic nature) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., metrics, status codes), how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., if it requires specific permissions or has performance impacts). For a tool that likely outputs structured health data, this omission hinders the agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'type' with enum values, 'connection' as a connection string). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., if 'connection' overrides 'host', 'port', etc.) or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Check') and resource ('database health'), and lists the aspects it covers (connection, size, and performance stats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_connect, db_query, and db_schema by focusing on health metrics rather than connectivity, queries, or schema inspection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with health_check, which might be a more general health tool.

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., needing valid database credentials), when it's appropriate (e.g., for monitoring or troubleshooting), or how it differs from related tools like db_connect (for establishing connections) or health_check (which might check broader system health). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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