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. 'Collect system metrics' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is completely inadequate for behavioral understanding.

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 at just three words. While this could be considered under-specified rather than appropriately concise, it does efficiently state the core action without wasted words. The structure is simple and front-loaded with the main verb.

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 tool with 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameter, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from alternatives.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description 'Collect system metrics' provides no information about the 'society' parameter - what it represents, what values it accepts, or how it affects the collection. With low schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this is insufficient.

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 'Collect system metrics' states a vague purpose with a generic verb and resource. It doesn't specify what metrics are collected, from which systems, or in what format. While it distinguishes from non-metrics siblings, it doesn't differentiate from other metrics tools like metrics_aggregate, metrics_dashboard, metrics_export, metrics_query, or society_metrics_summary.

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. There are multiple other metrics-related tools (metrics_aggregate, metrics_dashboard, metrics_export, metrics_query, society_metrics_summary) with overlapping domains, but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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