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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists pods with specific attributes and filtering options, but does not cover critical behaviors like output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a Kubernetes cluster.

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 functionality ('List pods with status, restarts, and age') and follows with filtering details. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like mutation risks, rate limits, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The tool's purpose is clear, but operational context is lacking.

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 input schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'namespace or label selector', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics, syntax examples, or constraints beyond what is already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('pods') with specific attributes ('status, restarts, and age'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'k8s_get_deployments' or 'process_list', which could also list resources, though the Kubernetes context is implied.

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, such as 'k8s_describe' for detailed pod information or 'k8s_logs' for pod logs. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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