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 of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool returns (load averages), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, whether it's a real-time snapshot or cached data, or what format the output takes. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 at two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence provides the purpose/context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action first.

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 that this is a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It tells what the tool returns (load averages) and why you'd use it (assess system stress), but doesn't describe the output format, units, or interpretation. For a monitoring tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail about the return value would be helpful, though the simplicity of the tool makes this less critical.

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, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It focuses on what the tool does rather than what it accepts as input, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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', 'Assess') and resources ('system load average'), specifying the time windows (1, 5, 15 min). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu or resource_overview by focusing specifically on load averages rather than broader system metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools in the resource_* category.

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. While it mentions 'Assess system stress over time,' it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable to other resource monitoring tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, or resource_overview. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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