Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a detection/read operation (not destructive) and specifies the context (working tree during merge/rebase). However, it doesn't describe output format or what constitutes a 'conflict' detection result.

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 sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent purpose clarity and usage guidance. The main gap is the lack of information about what the output looks like (e.g., list of conflicted files, conflict details), which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 ('detect files with merge conflicts') and resource ('in working tree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status or git_diff by focusing specifically on conflict detection rather than general status or differences.

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 explicitly provides usage context with 'Use during merge/rebase to find issues,' giving clear guidance on when this tool should be employed. This distinguishes it from other git tools that might be used in different development workflows.

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