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 states what the tool does (DNS resolution) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it performs recursive or iterative resolution, timeout behavior, caching implications, error handling, or what happens with invalid hostnames. The 'Debug DNS issues' hint suggests diagnostic use but doesn't specify what debugging information is returned.

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 appropriately concise with two clear phrases separated by a period. The first phrase states the core functionality, the second adds context. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by making the debugging aspect more integrated rather than appended.

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 single-parameter DNS lookup tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return format (structured data vs. raw output), what happens with multiple IPs, IPv4 vs. IPv6 prioritization, or failure modes. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate, but it doesn't fully address these gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'hostname' well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that it resolves 'hostname to IP addresses' but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, domain vs. FQDN expectations, wildcard handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve hostname to IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6)' - a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('hostname to IP addresses'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying DNS functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like network_ping or network_traceroute. The second part 'Debug DNS issues' adds context but isn't core to the purpose statement.

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 usage guidance. 'Debug DNS issues' implies a troubleshooting context, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_ping (connectivity testing) or network_ssl_check (certificate validation). No prerequisites, limitations, or 'when-not-to-use' information is provided.

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