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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions tracking changes in a time window but fails to specify critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted (e.g., list of files with metadata), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with the file system.

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 two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and scope. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters that likely returns complex file change data. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., file names, timestamps, change types) or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (directory, minutes, limit, pattern). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a time-based search, which is covered by the 'minutes' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 recently modified files' specifies the verb and resource, and 'Track what changed in a time window' adds context about temporal tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'file_changes_since', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 'file_changes_since' or other file-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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