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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about pagination (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (workflow definitions, their states, metadata), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data about workflows, more context about the return format and operational behavior would be helpful.

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 the single parameter 'per_page' clearly documented in the schema as 'Results per page'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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') and resource ('GitHub Actions workflows defined in the repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_workflow_runs', which might cause confusion about whether this lists workflow definitions versus executions.

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 'github_list_workflow_runs' or other GitHub listing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository access) or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information without usage boundaries.

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