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 indicates the tool is a read operation ('Get'), which is straightforward, but doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., if not in a git repository), performance characteristics, or output format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for behavioral transparency.

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 two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second adds practical context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse and understand without unnecessary details.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be more robust. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., string format) or error handling, leaving gaps in contextual information for a tool that might fail in non-git contexts.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage with an empty object. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it naturally meets the baseline. No additional semantics are required, making this score appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('name of the currently checked out branch'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_branch_list (which lists all branches) by focusing specifically on the current branch, providing clear differentiation.

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 includes 'Useful for automation scripts,' which implies a context for when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_branch_list or git_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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