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. It mentions 'Get' (implying read-only) and the output type ('hierarchy'), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles system processes, if it's real-time or cached, potential performance impact, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get process hierarchy' establishes the action and resource, 'showing parent-child relationships' clarifies the output structure, and 'Understand process spawning' adds context without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., tree structure, JSON), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no inputs, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in clarifying what 'hierarchy' means in practice.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This aligns perfectly with the schema, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or need to compensate.

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 process hierarchy showing parent-child relationships. Understand process spawning.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('process hierarchy'), and distinguishes it from siblings like process_list or process_children by focusing on hierarchical relationships rather than flat listing or direct children. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from process_search or process_info, which could also involve process relationships.

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 implies usage context through 'Understand process spawning,' suggesting it's for analyzing how processes are created. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like process_list (for all processes) or process_children (for direct children of a specific process). 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.