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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, whether it works on all laptop types, what happens if no battery is present, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'Get' followed by the specific resources being retrieved. Every word earns its place in this compact description.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is retrieved. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the format of the returned battery data (e.g., percentages, time formats, status categories) or any limitations (e.g., platform-specific behavior). The description is minimally complete but lacks depth for optimal agent understanding.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool actually does. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('laptop battery status, charge level, and time remaining'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, and resource_overview by focusing specifically on battery metrics rather than other system resources.

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 like resource_overview (which might include battery info) or other resource_* tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency recommendations, or specific contexts where battery status is particularly relevant versus other system metrics.

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