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. While 'Get pod logs' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether logs are streamed or returned as a block. For a Kubernetes tool with potential complexity, this leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 just two short sentences that communicate the core functionality and one important usage note. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 logging tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format logs are returned in, whether they're real-time or historical, how errors are handled, or what permissions are required. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the description should provide more operational context.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning container specification for multi-container pods, which is already covered in the container parameter's schema description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('pod logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also adds useful context about multi-container pods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' or 'compose_logs', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance with 'Specify container for multi-container pods' but offers no broader context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with similar logging tools in the sibling list, leaving significant gaps in usage guidance.

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