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 what the tool shows (details, diff, metadata) and the default behavior for the commit parameter, but doesn't cover aspects like output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it's read-only (though 'Show' implies it likely is). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the default parameter behavior. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and default parameter behavior, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools like git_diff. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'commit' documented as 'Commit hash (default: HEAD)'. The description adds value by reinforcing the default behavior ('Defaults to HEAD if no commit specified'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'details of a commit including diff and metadata', which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_log (which lists commits) or git_diff (which shows differences), though the mention of 'details' and 'metadata' provides some distinction.

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 implied usage by stating 'Defaults to HEAD if no commit specified', which gives context on when to omit the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_log for commit lists or git_diff for focused diffs, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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