Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions markdown support and multiple labels but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when creation fails. For a write operation tool, 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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds two key feature clarifications.

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 write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error handling, authentication needs, or how to verify success. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is critically lacking.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'markdown body' and 'multiple labels', which slightly clarifies the 'body' and 'labels' parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new GitHub issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_create_pr' or 'github_update_issue' beyond mentioning GitHub issues specifically.

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 like 'github_update_issue' or 'github_create_pr'. It mentions markdown and labels but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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