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 discloses the core behavior (showing line modifications) and optional line range, but lacks details on output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it reads from local or remote repositories. This is adequate for a read-only tool but misses richer context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds optional functionality. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 minimally complete for a read-only tool with full schema coverage. It covers purpose and optional parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context (e.g., Git repository state). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameters (file, startLine, endLine). The description adds marginal value by implying the line range is optional and for focusing on 'specific code,' but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specific action ('Show who last modified each line of a file') and identifies the resource ('a file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_diff, git_file_history, and git_show by focusing on line-by-line authorship attribution rather than changes, history, or content display.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to focus on specific code') by mentioning the optional line range. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., git_diff for changes, git_file_history for file-level history).

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