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 the default limit of 10 commits, which is useful, but doesn't cover other important aspects such as whether the tool requires a Git repository context, how it handles non-existent files, if it respects Git ignore rules, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and an additional detail about the default limit in parentheses. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes into distinct clauses.

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 (file-specific Git history), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and default parameter behavior, but misses details on prerequisites (e.g., requires Git repo), error handling, output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with gaps in fully understanding the tool's context and usage.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('file' and 'limit'), including the default value for 'limit'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by restating the default limit, but doesn't provide additional context like path format requirements or limit constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commit history for a specific file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_log' (which might get general commit history) or 'git_blame' (which shows line-by-line authorship), though the focus on a single file is implied.

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 specifying 'for a specific file' and mentions a default limit of 10 commits, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_log' (for broader history) or 'git_blame' (for detailed authorship), nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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