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. It mentions the tool lists units 'with status' and allows filtering, but doesn't describe what information is included in the listing, whether it shows all units by default, how results are formatted, or any performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'List systemd units with status' establishes the purpose, and 'Filter by type (service, timer) or state (Linux only)' adds key usage information without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering parameters but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, with both parameters having clear enum values and descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the filtering capability exists, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, defaults, or interactions. 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 ('List') and resource ('systemd units'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_status' by focusing on listing units with filtering capabilities rather than checking status of a specific unit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools in the server.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by type or state') and specifying 'Linux only' for state filtering, which suggests platform constraints. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linux_systemd_status' or other system monitoring tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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