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 the recursive behavior by default, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like what happens with no matches (empty list vs error), whether it follows symlinks, permission requirements, performance characteristics, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words or 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?

For a file search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list of paths? file objects?), error conditions, performance considerations, or how it interacts with the filesystem. The recursive behavior hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for effective tool 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by repeating the glob pattern example from the schema. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default values, or edge cases beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 files matching glob pattern'. It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('files'), and provides a concrete example ('**/*.json'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_tree' or 'file_search' alternatives that might exist in the broader context, though the sibling list doesn't show direct file search alternatives.

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 some usage context by stating 'Recursive by default', which implies when this behavior applies. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_tree' or 'file_recent_changes', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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