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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe the return format, whether it provides real-time or historical data, what units are used, or any performance characteristics. The mention of 'identify leaks' suggests some analysis capability, but this isn't elaborated.

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 with two clear sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds important context about use cases. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks details about return format, data structure, or behavioral characteristics. Given that this is a read-only monitoring tool (implied by 'Get'), the description is minimally complete but could benefit from more detail about what information is returned.

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 parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('RAM and swap memory usage'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying its unique focus on memory metrics. It also adds secondary purposes ('Check available memory and identify leaks') that further differentiate it from general resource monitoring tools.

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 the phrase 'identify leaks,' suggesting this tool is appropriate for troubleshooting memory issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like resource_overview or resource_processes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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