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. It mentions what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what permissions might be required, how the results are formatted, or any potential side effects like network probing that could trigger security alerts.

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 perfectly concise at just 8 words split into two clear clauses. The first clause states the core function, and the second adds important context about verification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format or what 'Verify internet routing' entails operationally. Given the network diagnostic nature and lack of annotations, more detail about behavioral expectations would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't incorrectly mention parameters.

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 ('Get', 'Verify') and resources ('default gateway IP and interface', 'internet routing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_interfaces or network_route_table by focusing specifically on the default gateway and routing verification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context through 'Verify internet routing', suggesting this tool is for checking connectivity or routing issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_ping or network_traceroute, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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