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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List repository issues with filters. Filter by state, labels, or assignee (default: open).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a list tool with documented parameters. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options but lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication. For a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 with descriptions and an enum for 'state'. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default for 'state' ('default: open') and listing filter types, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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: 'List repository issues with filters.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('repository issues'), and scope ('with filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_get_issue' or 'github_create_issue', which would require a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning filters ('Filter by state, labels, or assignee'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'github_get_issue' (for single issues) or 'github_list_prs' (for pull requests). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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