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 successfully communicates key behavioral traits: the tool generates UUIDs (implying read-only, non-destructive operation), supports two version types with different generation methods, and has a batch capability with a maximum limit. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when invalid parameters are provided.

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 perfectly concise with two tightly focused sentences that each earn their place: the first specifies what's generated and the version options, the second states the batch capability and limit. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (UUID generation) is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple generation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core functionality, version options, and batch limitations. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, given the tool's straightforward nature, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the batch capability ('up to 100 at once') which relates to the count parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('UUID'), specifies the versions supported ('v1 time-based or v4 random'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gen_hash, gen_password, and gen_random by focusing exclusively on UUID generation. It provides precise scope information that differentiates it from other generation 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 implies usage context through the version options and batch capability ('up to 100 at once'), suggesting when to choose v1 vs v4 and when batch generation is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gen_random or provide clear exclusion criteria for other UUID-related operations that might be needed.

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