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 states the tool retrieves memory details for debugging, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires special permissions, if it's safe to run frequently, what the output format looks like, or if it has any 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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two short phrases: 'Get detailed memory breakdown: RSS, virtual, shared.' and 'Debug memory issues.' Every word contributes directly to explaining the tool's purpose and use case, with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description provides basic purpose and use context but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be important for a debugging tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what information is returned, but it only lists memory metrics without specifying structure.

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 semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain valid PID ranges or handling of invalid inputs). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 detailed memory breakdown') and resources ('memory breakdown: RSS, virtual, shared'), and includes a use case ('Debug memory issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'process_info' or 'resource_memory' that might also provide memory-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 the phrase 'Debug memory issues', which implies a context for use. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'process_info' for general process details or 'resource_memory' for system-wide memory), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid process ID.

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