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. It mentions 'secure password' and 'configurable character sets,' but lacks details on security standards (e.g., entropy, randomness source), error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details (configurability, default length) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It doesn't address security implications, return values, or error cases, which are gaps for a tool generating sensitive data. However, the schema is comprehensive, partially compensating for description brevity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying character set configurability and default length, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides (e.g., interactions between parameters). Baseline 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: 'Generate secure password with configurable character sets (default: 16 chars).' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('secure password'), and key capability ('configurable character sets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gen_random or gen_hash, which also generate values but for different purposes.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like gen_random (for random data) or gen_hash (for hashing), nor does it specify scenarios where password generation is appropriate versus other generation tools. The default length is noted, but no context for selection is given.

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