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 what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it reads files safely, handles large files, returns errors for missing files, provides output format, or has performance characteristics. 'Verify file integrity' hints at comparison but doesn't explain how verification works.

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 brief phrases that communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'calculate file hash' states the primary action, the parenthetical lists algorithms, and 'verify file integrity' adds the use case. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks important context about behavior, output format, and usage scenarios. The agent would need to infer or test how verification works and what the return value looks like.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the hash algorithms available (MD5, SHA256, SHA512) which the enum already shows, and implies the 'path' parameter is for files. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('calculate', 'verify') and resources ('file hash', 'file integrity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gen_hash' by specifying it's for files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'file_compare' or 'file_duplicates' which might also involve file integrity checks.

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 like 'gen_hash' (for non-file hashing) or other file integrity tools. It mentions 'verify file integrity' but doesn't explain when that's needed or what scenarios this tool is best suited for.

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