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 mentions 'list' and 'check which hooks are enabled,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires git repository access, potential errors if no .git/hooks exists, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, consisting of two clear sentences: 'List git hooks in .git/hooks directory. Check which hooks are enabled.' Every sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope without waste, making it easy to parse.

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 adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, output details) and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.

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, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter explanations.

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 git hooks in .git/hooks directory. Check which hooks are enabled.' It specifies the verb ('list', 'check'), resource ('git hooks'), and location ('.git/hooks directory'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_status or git_branch_list, which are unrelated but share the git prefix, so it doesn't fully distinguish from all siblings.

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, context (e.g., when working with git repositories), or compare to other git-related tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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