Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a pull request (implying a write operation) but fails to mention critical aspects like required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., triggering CI/CD), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Create a pull request') and includes only essential details (head-to-base flow and default). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return values, and usage context (e.g., repository scope). Given the complexity of creating a pull request, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the 'base' parameter's default ('default: main'), which is already in the schema. It doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or examples, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Create a pull request') and the target ('from head branch to base'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_merge_pr' or 'github_get_pr', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the default base branch ('default: main'), but it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence, permissions), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'github_create_issue' instead). This leaves the agent without clear context for tool selection.

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