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 generating random numbers but lacks details on randomness quality (e.g., cryptographically secure), performance, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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: 'Generate random integers or floats within a range.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, especially for a generation tool where output format matters.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters (min, max, count, type) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying range-based generation but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 random integers or floats within a range.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('random integers or floats'), and scope ('within a range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gen_hash', 'gen_password', or 'gen_uuid', which all generate different types of values, though the distinction is somewhat implied by the type of output.

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_hash' or 'gen_uuid', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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