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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Get') and a use case ('Debug configuration issues'), but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure), potential errors (e.g., invalid PID), permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get environment variables for a running process. Debug configuration issues.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and a use case, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for effective use.

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 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as valid PID ranges or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get environment variables for a running process.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('environment variables'), with a process context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_info' or 'process_list', which could also provide process-related 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 minimal usage guidance with 'Debug configuration issues,' which implies a troubleshooting context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_info' or other process-related siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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