Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive health check' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are required, if it's resource-intensive, or what output format to expect. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 action ('Run comprehensive health check') and lists the key components without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 tool's complexity (checking multiple systems) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines what's checked but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or output details, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.

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 with a specific verb ('Run') and enumerates the components checked (Git, GitHub API, system resources, MCP status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'db_health', 'society_health_all', or 'claude_mcp_status' by covering multiple systems in one comprehensive check, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing specific health checks (e.g., 'db_health', 'resource_overview', 'claude_mcp_status'), the description lacks context on whether this is a general diagnostic or when it's preferable over targeted checks.

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