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 mentions the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it returns real-time or cached data, any permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on no matches (e.g., returns empty list or error). This is a significant gap for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (a search operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, error handling, and usage context compared to siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to provide a complete understanding, which it fails to do adequately.

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 single parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query (name or command)'. The description adds marginal value by reiterating this ('Search query (name or command line)') but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples, search syntax, or case-sensitivity. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find', 'Locate') and resources ('processes', 'running services or apps'), and identifies search criteria ('by name or command line'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'process_search' alternatives that might exist in the broader context, though no direct siblings with similar names are present in the provided list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, stating it's for finding processes by name or command line, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'process_list' (which might list all processes without filtering) or specify scenarios where this search is preferred over other process-related tools.

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