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 the default state filter but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. For a list operation 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 front-loads the core purpose ('List pull requests') and immediately adds the most important qualification about filtering. There's zero wasted text, making it optimally concise for its informational content.

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 simple list operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention the return format (list of PR objects) or pagination behavior to be more complete. The current description leaves the agent guessing about what the output looks like.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'optional state filter (default: open)', which slightly clarifies the 'state' parameter's default behavior. This meets the baseline 3 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 action ('List pull requests') and resource ('pull requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr' or 'github_list_issues', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn 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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'optional state filter (default: open)', suggesting when to use different parameter values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'github_get_pr' (for single PR details) or 'github_list_issues', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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