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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what gets compared (size, timestamps, content hash) and that it 'detects differences', it does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., missing files), or the output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compare two files') followed by specifics ('size, timestamps, and content hash') and outcome ('Detect differences'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (comparing files across multiple attributes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is compared but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or output structure. It meets basic clarity but falls short of providing complete context for safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters (path1, path2) clearly documented in the schema as file paths. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('compare', 'detect') and resources ('two files'), and explicitly lists the comparison aspects: size, timestamps, and content hash. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_checksum (which only computes a single hash) and file_diff (which might focus on textual differences rather than metadata and hash comparison).

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 for comparing files across multiple dimensions (size, timestamps, hash), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_checksum (for single-file hashing) or file_diff (for content differences). It provides context about what gets compared but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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