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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is 'graceful' (implying SIGTERM first) and has an optional timeout before SIGKILL. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, side effects (e.g., container state changes), error conditions, or what happens if the container isn't running. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is moderately informative but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Stop a running container gracefully') and followed by a key optional feature ('Optional timeout before SIGKILL'). Zero waste—every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 is moderately complete for a 2-parameter mutation tool. It covers the basic action and timeout behavior but lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, or interactions with sibling tools. For a tool that stops containers, more context on side effects or state changes would be beneficial.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('container' and 'timeout') with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying 'timeout' relates to 'Seconds to wait before killing', which aligns with the schema. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('a running container'), and specifies it's done 'gracefully'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_restart (which restarts) and docker_kill (not present but implied by SIGKILL mention). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_pause or other container management tools in the list.

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 context by mentioning 'gracefully' and 'SIGKILL', suggesting this is for controlled stopping rather than force-killing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like docker_restart or when not to use it (e.g., for paused containers). No prerequisites or dependencies are mentioned.

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