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 is for reading WiFi details, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it works offline, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The platform constraint is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get WiFi connection details') and adds necessary specifics (data points and platform scope) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and platform limitations, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or deeper behavioral context. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the response structure, but the simplicity keeps it from being incomplete.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details since none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps, but it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' preventing a perfect score.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('WiFi connection details'), specifying what information is retrieved (SSID, signal strength, channel) and the platform scope (macOS/Linux). It distinguishes itself from siblings like network_interfaces or network_overview by focusing specifically on WiFi details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all network-related tools, keeping it from 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 implies usage context through the platform specification (macOS/Linux), suggesting it's not for Windows systems. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_interfaces or network_stats, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the OS limitation.

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