Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves disk usage information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it provides real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects undefined.

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 extremely concise with just two short phrases that directly state the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary function stated first. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (total space, used space, percentage, per-filesystem breakdown), whether it requires elevated privileges, or how it differs from similar monitoring tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 documents the single 'path' parameter. The description mentions 'mounted filesystems' which provides context for the path parameter, but doesn't add specific syntax, format requirements, or examples beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Monitor') and resource ('disk space usage for mounted filesystems'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resource_cpu or resource_memory by specifying disk space, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other storage-related tools that might exist.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions monitoring storage capacity, but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools like file_size_summary might be more appropriate. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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