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 states the tool lists ports but doesn't specify whether it returns active/listening ports only, includes TCP/UDP details, requires elevated permissions, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero 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 sentences that directly state the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool with no annotations and potential behavioral complexity (e.g., port listing details), it should provide more context about what information is returned and any limitations to be fully complete.

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 mentions 'process' and 'app' but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List', 'Find') and resources ('network ports', 'process', 'app'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_listening_ports' or 'process_info', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a process ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'network_listening_ports' or 'process_info', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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