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 states the tool shows status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), requires git installation, works in any directory, or outputs format details. It lacks context on error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes specific details (commit hash, sync state) without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the 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-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. Given the low complexity and no annotations, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in practical guidance.

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 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the parameter-free case.

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 ('Show status') and target ('all submodules'), specifying what information is included ('commit hash and sync state'). It distinguishes itself from other git tools by focusing on submodules, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling submodule tools (none are listed).

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 (e.g., being in a git repository with submodules), compare to other git status tools, or indicate scenarios where this is preferred over general git status.

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