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. It mentions the tool lists connections and is for debugging, but fails to specify whether this is a real-time snapshot or historical data, what permissions are required, whether it's resource-intensive, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral context.

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 with just two short phrases that directly convey the core functionality and primary use case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by context. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., connection states, process IDs, protocols), whether it's filtered or comprehensive, or any behavioral constraints. For a network diagnostic tool in a rich sibling environment, more contextual information would be helpful.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A perfect score isn't given because the description could theoretically add optional filtering hints, but it's not required.

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 with specific verbs ('List active TCP/UDP connections') and resources ('with remote endpoints'), and includes a secondary use case ('Debug network issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_listening_ports or network_stats, which prevents a perfect score.

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 with 'Debug network issues' suggesting a troubleshooting context, but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many network-related sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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