Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'live' usage and 'monitor' which implies real-time data, it doesn't specify whether this tool streams data continuously (beyond the noStream parameter), what format the output takes, whether it requires Docker daemon access, or any rate limits. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place - 'Get live CPU/memory usage for containers' establishes the core functionality, and 'Monitor resource consumption' adds context about the tool's monitoring purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (real-time container monitoring), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, streaming behavior beyond the noStream parameter, or integration context. For a monitoring tool without structured output documentation, more guidance would be helpful.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Monitor') and resources ('live CPU/memory usage for containers', 'resource consumption'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_ps (which lists containers) or docker_inspect (which provides detailed container info) by focusing on real-time resource metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from resource_cpu or resource_memory tools that might provide system-wide metrics.

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 sibling tools like docker_ps (for container listing), docker_inspect (for detailed container configuration), or system monitoring tools like resource_cpu/resource_memory. There's also no mention of prerequisites or when this tool would be preferred over other monitoring approaches.

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