Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention refresh rates, data freshness, whether this requires special permissions, or what format the output takes. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about per-interface measurement in a natural flow.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about output format, measurement intervals, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could affect tool selection and result interpretation.

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 parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score above the minimum viable level.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current network bandwidth usage in bytes/sec per interface'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_stats' or 'resource_network_stats', but the per-interface focus provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'network_stats' or 'resource_network_stats' that appear in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with similar monitoring tools.

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