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 action ('Start') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., container state changes), error conditions (e.g., if container doesn't exist), or output format. 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens on success/failure, permissions), output expectations, and usage context. For a tool that modifies system state, this is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'container' parameter documented as 'Container name or ID.' The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Start') and resource ('a stopped container'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_restart (which restarts a running container) or docker_stop (which stops a container), though the 'stopped' qualifier implies some distinction.

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 minimal guidance by specifying 'a stopped container,' which implies when to use it (for containers that are stopped). However, it doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., docker_restart for running containers), prerequisites (e.g., the container must exist and be stopped), or exclusions (e.g., not for starting new containers from images).

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