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 what metadata is retrieved (size, permissions, modified time) but fails to address critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with file systems.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly convey the tool's function without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by specifying the action and the data returned, 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are important given the complexity of file system interactions. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.

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, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'File or directory path'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as path format examples or handling of special characters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 ('Get', 'Check') and resources ('file metadata', 'file properties'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_size_summary' or 'file_read', which might offer overlapping functionality, 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, such as 'file_size_summary' for size-only queries or 'file_read' for content access. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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