Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Compare' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description mentions outputs but doesn't describe format or potential errors.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the three output types. Every sentence earns its place.

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 comparison tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and doesn't explain output format details. The agent knows what to expect but not how to interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (base/head as branch/commit identifiers). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Compare two branches or commits' with specific outputs 'Shows diff, files changed, and commits.' This provides a verb+resource+output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'file_compare' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with similar tools like 'git_diff' or 'github_get_pr' that might also show differences. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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