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. It states the tool retrieves schema information but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication (implied by connection parameters), potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple input parameters.

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 ('Get table schema') and lists key details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the tool behaves (e.g., authentication needs, data format), what errors might occur, or how to interpret results. For a database tool with connection parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema fully documents all 8 parameters (e.g., 'type' with enum values, 'table', connection details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses these to fetch schema, which aligns with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('table schema'), listing what information is retrieved (columns, types, keys, constraints). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_tables' or 'db_query', but the focus on schema details is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'db_tables' (which might list tables without schema details) or 'db_query' (which executes queries).

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