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 'Monitor system performance,' which hints at a read-only, monitoring function, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, how data is sampled, if it's real-time or historical, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get CPU usage percentage (overall and per-core). Monitor system performance.' The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds brief context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple monitoring tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are no inputs to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description compensates by not introducing unnecessary parameter details, though it could slightly clarify the lack of parameters.

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 CPU usage percentage (overall and per-core).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU usage percentage'), including the scope ('overall and per-core'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resource_load' or 'resource_overview', which may also provide performance metrics, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 with 'Monitor system performance,' which implies a usage context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resource_load' or 'process_cpu_history.' No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references are included, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.

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