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 the default limit (10) and the 'quick' nature, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires special permissions, what resource metrics are included (CPU, memory, etc.), the output format, refresh rate, or system impact. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with key details (top N, resource usage, default), and the second adds contextual guidance ('Quick system overview'). Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a system monitoring tool. It lacks details on what 'resource usage' entails, output format, permissions needed, or system impact. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use beyond basic invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating the default (10) but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges, units, or effects beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Get top N processes by resource usage' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processes'), plus the scope ('by resource usage'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'resource_processes', but the 'top N' and 'resource usage' qualifiers provide some implicit distinction.

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 implied usage context: 'Quick system overview' suggests this tool is for a high-level summary rather than detailed analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'process_list' or 'resource_processes', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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