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. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Terminate'), has a safety confirmation requirement, and specifies a default signal. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens after termination, but covers the essential safety aspect well.

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 perfectly concise with three clear, front-loaded statements that each earn their place: states the action, specifies the safety requirement, and indicates the default behavior. No wasted words 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by emphasizing the safety confirmation requirement and default signal. It could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or error cases, but given the clear schema and focused purpose, it provides adequate context for responsible 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the confirm requirement and default signal, both of which are already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Terminate') and target resource ('a process by PID'), making the purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes this tool from sibling process tools (like process_list, process_info, process_search) by specifying it's for termination rather than querying or monitoring.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Terminate a process') and includes a safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true for safety'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling process tools.

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