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 filtering capability but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two short sentences that convey the core purpose and main parameter. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 cover authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination, error handling, or output format. Given the complexity of GitHub API interactions and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational 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?

The description mentions 'Filter by state' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage and the parameter having a clear enum, the schema already documents this well. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('milestones') with the purpose of 'tracking release progress'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_issues' or 'github_list_prs' which list different GitHub resources.

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. It mentions filtering by state but doesn't explain when to filter by 'open', 'closed', or 'all', nor does it reference other GitHub listing tools for comparison or specific use cases.

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