Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool traces paths and diagnoses issues, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as execution time, output format, potential network impact, or error conditions. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly state the tool's function and purpose. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted verbiage or unnecessary details.

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 complexity of a network diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., hop-by-hop details, latency measurements), error handling, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (host and maxHops). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as host format examples or maxHops implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 with a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('network path to a host'), and it adds diagnostic context ('Diagnose routing and latency issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_ping or network_dns_lookup, 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 by mentioning diagnosis of routing and latency issues, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_ping for basic connectivity or network_dns_lookup for DNS resolution). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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