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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default depth of 3, which is useful context, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as output format (e.g., text, JSON), error handling, permissions required, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral detail (default depth). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a default value but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, making it incomplete for confident tool invocation.

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%, with both parameters ('directory' and 'depth') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying depth is configurable with a default of 3, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., what 'depth' means in practice or examples of directory paths). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Generate directory tree structure. Visualize folder hierarchy (default depth: 3).' It specifies the verb ('generate', 'visualize') and resource ('directory tree structure', 'folder hierarchy'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_search' or 'file_stats', which prevents 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. It mentions a default depth of 3 but doesn't explain when to adjust this or when to choose this tool over other file-related tools like 'file_search' or 'file_stats'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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