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. It discloses the core behavior (showing unstaged changes) and optional file filtering, but doesn't mention output format, line-by-line diff details, or potential error conditions. For a read-only diff tool, this is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context like how conflicts or binary files are handled.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the optional parameter. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and the parameter's purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the diff format or typical output structure to fully guide the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one optional parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'file' parameter is for 'see[ing] changes for only that file,' which clarifies the filtering semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Specific file to diff' description. This compensates well for the single parameter.

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 ('Show unstaged changes') and resource ('working directory'), with precise scope ('unstaged' vs 'staged'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like git_staged_diff (for staged changes) and git_status (which shows status summary rather than detailed diff).

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 this tool (to see unstaged changes) and includes an optional parameter for file-specific diffs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like git_staged_diff for comparison, though the 'unstaged' qualifier implies the distinction.

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