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. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is safe, whether it requires permissions, what the output format looks like, or if there are performance considerations for large directories. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 state the tool's core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.

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 (directory analysis with subdirectory breakdown), no annotations, no output schema, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, performance characteristics, and how it differs from similar tools. The description meets basic requirements but leaves significant gaps for effective tool selection.

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 for its single parameter ('directory'), so the schema already documents what the parameter expects. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify path format requirements, relative vs absolute paths, or special directory names. The baseline score of 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 ('analyze', 'find') and resources ('directory size', 'space usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'file_stats' or 'file_tree' by focusing specifically on size analysis with subdirectory breakdown. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools.

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_stats' or 'resource_disk'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools that might provide similar functionality. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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