Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'List files' and 'Track changes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter interactions. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for effective tool invocation.

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 description mentions 'timestamp' and 'point in time,' which aligns with the 'since' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the 'directory' or 'pattern' parameters, nor provide context on how they interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value over the structured data.

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: 'List files modified after a timestamp. Track changes since a point in time.' It uses specific verbs ('List', 'Track') and identifies the resource ('files'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_recent_changes' or 'file_search' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 'file_recent_changes' (which might serve a similar purpose) or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over general search tools. The user must infer usage from the description alone.

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