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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'trend' means (time window, granularity, format), whether this requires special permissions, if it's resource-intensive, or what the output looks like. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word serves a purpose - the first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second adds context about the monitoring aspect. There's zero wasted verbiage 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 single-parameter read operation with good schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'trend' means, the time range covered, output format, or performance implications. It meets minimum requirements but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.

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 100% description coverage with the single 'pid' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter information in the description.

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', 'Monitor') and resource ('CPU usage trend for a process'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'process_info' or 'resource_cpu' by focusing specifically on historical CPU usage trends rather than current state or general information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_info', 'resource_cpu', or 'process_top'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, time range considerations, or what makes this tool uniquely suited for monitoring performance trends over time compared to other process-related tools.

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