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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking by commit count and identifying active maintainers/authors, but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it requires git repository access. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration are present.

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 moderate complexity (listing and ranking contributors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but misses behavioral details like output format, error handling, and usage context. The high schema coverage for the single parameter helps, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use.

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 one parameter ('limit') clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behavior if limit is omitted or how ranking ties are handled). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'List contributors ranked by commit count. Identify active maintainers and authors.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('contributors'), and ranking criteria ('by commit count'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_log or git_file_history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other contributor-related tools (none are listed among siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository), when it's appropriate (e.g., for project analysis vs. individual file history), or what distinguishes it from similar tools like git_log (which lists commits, not contributors). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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