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. It states it 'gets' info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The mention of 'parameters and examples' hints at output content but lacks specifics on format or completeness.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details ('parameters and examples') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy 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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and output scope but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's minimally viable.

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 one parameter 'tool' documented as 'Tool name'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to fetch info for a specific tool, but doesn't clarify syntax (e.g., case sensitivity), valid values, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('detailed info about a tool'), specifying it includes 'parameters and examples'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mcp_search_tools' (which likely searches for tools) and 'mcp_list_categories' (which likely lists categories). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'claude_mcp_status' or 'society_mcp_status', which might provide MCP-related info but not tool details.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a tool name), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'mcp_search_tools' for discovery or 'claude_mcp_status' for MCP system info. Usage is implied only by the purpose, with no explicit context.

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