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 but offers minimal information. 'Dashboard data generation' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the output takes, or any side effects. The description fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic operation name.

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, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single phrase doesn't provide enough context to be truly helpful, though it doesn't waste words on irrelevant details.

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 that this is a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what the tool actually does. 'Dashboard data generation' is insufficient for understanding the tool's purpose, behavior, or output. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding this tool's function.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, this is acceptable given the parameterless nature of the tool, warranting a baseline score above minimum viable.

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 'Dashboard data generation' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'metrics_dashboard'. It doesn't specify what kind of data is generated, for what type of dashboard, or what the actual operation involves. While it mentions 'data generation', it lacks a specific verb-resource combination that would clarify the tool's function.

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 several sibling tools related to metrics (metrics_aggregate, metrics_collect, metrics_export, metrics_query), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from those or in what context it should be selected. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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