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 the dry-run option, which hints at potential changes, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify that this is a mutating operation (implied by 'apply'), what permissions are required, whether changes are idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides a key usage tip. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex output schema.

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 (Kubernetes operations can be high-stakes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and a safety tip but misses details on permissions, idempotency, error handling, or return values. For a mutating tool in this context, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial to achieve full completeness.

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 (file, namespace, dryRun) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the purpose of dryRun for previewing changes, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 verb ('apply') and resource ('Kubernetes manifest'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like k8s_delete or k8s_describe by focusing on applying manifests rather than deleting or describing resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential manifest-related operations beyond what's obvious from the name.

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 explicit guidance to 'Use dryRun=true to preview changes first,' which is valuable context for safe usage. It doesn't mention when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the dry-run advice implicitly suggests caution with live changes. No misleading guidance is present.

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