Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Linux-only constraint and diagnostic purpose, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires elevated permissions, what specific I/O metrics are returned, if there are rate limits, whether it's a real-time snapshot or historical data, or what format the output takes.

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 brief sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality and platform constraint, the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted language and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what specific I/O statistics are returned (read/write rates, I/O wait, etc.), the output format, whether it requires root permissions, or how it differs from related process monitoring tools. The Linux-only constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with the single 'pid' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('disk I/O statistics for a process'), and specifies the operating system constraint ('Linux only'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_cpu_history' or 'process_memory_detail' that also provide process-specific metrics.

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 'Diagnose I/O bottlenecks' suggesting a diagnostic context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_info' or 'resource_disk', nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the Linux-only note.

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