Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Show'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires elevated privileges. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core function, the second adds context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or waste.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or network-specific constraints. For a network diagnostic tool, more context about what 'Show' returns 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Show IP routing table' (verb+resource) and adds context with 'Debug traffic routing and network paths.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like network_gateway or network_interfaces by focusing specifically on routing tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from network_traceroute which also deals with network paths.

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 'Debug traffic routing and network paths,' suggesting this tool is for troubleshooting network routing issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like network_traceroute or network_gateway, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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