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 mentions the tool is 'useful after config changes,' hinting at a use case, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the restart is graceful or forceful, what happens to running processes, or if there are permission requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core action, and the second provides contextual utility, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 of a container restart operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, or comparisons to siblings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 ('container' and 'timeout'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without adding extra value.

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 verb ('Restart') and resource ('a container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like docker_start or docker_stop, which would require more specific language about when restart is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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 some implied guidance with 'Useful after config changes,' suggesting a context for use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_start or docker_stop, nor does it mention prerequisites or potential side effects, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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