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 indicates this is a read-only check operation ('Check how many commits'), which is appropriate. However, it doesn't specify what happens if the branch doesn't exist, whether it requires network access to check upstream, or what format the results will be in (just counts or detailed commit info).

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 at just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides practical usage context. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the return format or potential error conditions. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is minimally viable but leaves some behavioral questions unanswered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'branch' well-documented as 'Branch name (default: current branch).' The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline would be 3, but with 0 required parameters and clear default behavior, it earns a 4.

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: 'Check how many commits a branch is ahead/behind its upstream.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('branch'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_branch_list' or 'git_current_branch' beyond its unique functionality.

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 the tool: 'Useful before push/pull.' This gives practical guidance about the tool's intended timing, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many git-related siblings.

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