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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a GitHub API tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 GitHub API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects when invoking this tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('per_page') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it need to given the high coverage. This meets the baseline expectation when the 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 action ('List branches') and specifies what information is included ('with protection status and last commit info'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_branch_list' or 'git_branch_ahead_behind', which appear to be related but distinct GitHub/git branch tools.

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 'git_branch_list' or other GitHub-specific tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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