Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's safe to run frequently, what happens if the resource doesn't exist, or any rate limiting considerations. It mentions the type of information returned but doesn't describe the format, depth, or potential side effects of the operation.

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 at just 8 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed resource info') followed by specific details about what's included. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 Kubernetes resource inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it mentions what information is returned, it doesn't describe the format, structure, or typical use cases. Given that this is a read operation on potentially sensitive Kubernetes resources, more context about permissions, error conditions, and output expectations would be valuable. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples of valid values. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed resource info') with specific details about what information is included ('events, conditions, and spec'). It distinguishes itself from other Kubernetes tools like k8s_get_pods or k8s_get_deployments by offering detailed information rather than just listing resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k8s_logs or other inspection tools beyond the scope of what it returns.

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. There are multiple Kubernetes-related sibling tools (k8s_apply, k8s_delete, k8s_get_deployments, k8s_get_pods, k8s_logs) but the description doesn't indicate when k8s_describe is preferable to k8s_get_pods for pod information or when detailed info is needed versus basic listing. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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