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. While it mentions that the status includes 'logs and dependencies,' it doesn't specify what format the output takes (e.g., structured JSON, plain text), whether it requires elevated permissions (e.g., sudo), potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers unit reloads), or error conditions (e.g., handling of non-existent units). For a 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed status of a systemd unit') and includes essential qualifiers ('including logs and dependencies' and 'Linux only'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately 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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, output format) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context to help an agent use it effectively, but it meets a bare minimum for a simple status-checking tool.

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 the single parameter 'unit' documented as 'Unit name (e.g., nginx.service).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid unit types (e.g., .service, .socket) or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 detailed status') and resource ('systemd unit'), with additional scope details ('including logs and dependencies') and platform constraint ('Linux only'). It effectively communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_units' or 'process_info' which might provide related information.

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. While it mentions 'Linux only' as a platform constraint, it doesn't specify when to choose this over other status-checking tools (e.g., 'linux_systemd_units' for listing units, 'process_info' for process details, or 'docker_inspect' for container status). There's no mention of 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.