Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists files and helps discover logs, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or has side effects, what format the output takes (e.g., list of filenames, metadata), if there are rate limits, or if specific permissions are required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded: two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds context about the intended use. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, safety). Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for reliable use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty object), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available log files in configured directory' specifies the verb (list) and resource (log files). 'Discover logs to analyze' adds context about the intended use. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claude_log_files', 'claude_logs', or 'log_search', which appear related to log operations.

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: 'Discover logs to analyze' implies usage for log analysis preparation, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or alternatives. Given multiple sibling tools with 'log' in their names (e.g., claude_log_files, log_search), there's no guidance on when to choose this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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