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 mentions the output format ('detailed JSON config') and a use case ('Debug networking and mounts'), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get detailed JSON config', 'container or image', 'Debug networking and mounts') adds specific value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and a use case, but for a tool that likely returns complex JSON data, more context on output structure or behavioral traits would be beneficial. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (target and type). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. However, it implies the target is for inspection and the type helps specify the object, aligning with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('Get detailed JSON config') and target ('container or image'), with a specific purpose ('Debug networking and mounts'). It distinguishes from siblings like docker_logs or docker_ps by focusing on configuration inspection rather than logs or process listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all Docker-related tools (e.g., docker_images also lists images).

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 implies usage for debugging networking and mounts, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like docker_ps for status or docker_logs for runtime output, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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