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. It mentions 'Clean up redundant files,' which implies a read-only identification step, but doesn't clarify if the tool itself performs deletion or just reports duplicates. It lacks details on permissions needed, output format, performance considerations (e.g., large directories), or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 short sentences with zero waste: 'Find duplicate files by content hash.' states the core purpose, and 'Clean up redundant files.' adds context. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's intent without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, which are important for a tool that might handle large file systems. However, the high schema coverage helps, making it adequate but with clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 ('directory' and 'pattern') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Find duplicate files by content hash' specifies the verb (find) and resource (duplicate files) with the method (content hash). It distinguishes from siblings like file_checksum (which computes hashes) and file_search (which searches by name/pattern). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from file_compare (which might compare specific files).

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 through 'Clean up redundant files,' suggesting this tool is for identifying duplicates as a precursor to cleanup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like file_compare for direct comparison or file_search for pattern-based searches. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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