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 implies a read-only operation ('List') and hints at the purpose ('Find saved work'), but lacks details on behavioral aspects such as output format, ordering, or potential errors (e.g., if no stashes exist). It does not contradict annotations, but offers limited behavioral insight beyond the basic action.

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 action and output, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 minimal. It covers the basic purpose and usage, but lacks details on output structure or edge cases, which could help an agent interpret results. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is given since it avoids redundancy and correctly handles the absence of parameters.

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 action ('List all stashed changes') and resource ('stashed changes'), specifying the output includes descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status or git_diff by focusing exclusively on stashed changes, not general repository state.

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 usage ('Find saved work to restore later'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks like git_stash_apply or git_stash_pop, which might be relevant for a complete agent.

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