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 that the tool shows tracking info and ahead/behind status, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention whether the output is paginated, sorted, or formatted, or if there are any rate limits or permissions required. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List all local and remote branches') and adds clarifying details ('with tracking info. Shows which branches are ahead/behind remotes.'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a basic listing tool. It explains what branches are included and what additional info is provided. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structured data vs. plain text).

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output behavior. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all local and remote branches') with specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'git_current_branch' (which shows only current) and 'github_list_branches' (which likely shows GitHub remote branches only) by specifying both local and remote branches with tracking info.

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 by mentioning 'tracking info' and 'ahead/behind remotes,' which suggests this tool is for checking branch synchronization status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'git_branch_ahead_behind' (which might focus on specific branches) or 'git_remote_list' (which lists remotes, not branches).

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