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. 'List threads within a process' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires elevated permissions, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, whether it works on remote processes, or what happens with invalid PIDs. The second sentence 'Analyze multi-threaded applications' suggests analytical output but provides no specifics.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds analytical context. There's no wasted verbiage, though the second sentence could be more specific about what 'Analyze' entails.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (thread IDs, names, states, CPU usage?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context beyond the basic operation. Given the complexity of thread analysis and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete guidance.

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 the single 'pid' parameter documented as 'Process ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify PID format, valid ranges, or what happens with non-existent PIDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 'List threads within a process' (specific verb+resource). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like process_list, process_tree, or process_children, which also deal with processes. The second sentence 'Analyze multi-threaded applications' adds context but doesn't further distinguish the tool's unique scope.

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. There are multiple process-related sibling tools (process_list, process_tree, process_children, process_search, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific thread-listing tool is appropriate versus those other process tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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