Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sorting and limiting, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is real-time or cached data, if it requires elevated permissions, pagination behavior, output format, or error conditions. For a system monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List running processes with CPU/memory usage') and follows with key functionality ('Sort by...'). Every word earns its place, 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?

For a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., process list structure, units for CPU/memory), behavioral traits like permissions or data freshness, or how it differs from similar tools. The 100% schema coverage helps parameters, but overall context is lacking.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('sort', 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning sorting options ('cpu, memory, pid, or name') which the schema already covers. No additional semantics like default values, constraints, or examples are provided beyond the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('running processes') with specific attributes ('CPU/memory usage'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_info' (detailed info), 'process_search' (searching), and 'process_top' (real-time monitoring) by focusing on listing with usage metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'resource_processes' which might overlap.

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 when needing to view processes with resource metrics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'process_search', 'process_top', or 'resource_processes'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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