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 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, what format the output takes, or whether it provides real-time or historical data. For a system monitoring 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: 'Get comprehensive system overview: CPU, memory, disk, and top processes.' Every word contributes meaning—it specifies the action, scope, and components. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns (CPU, memory, disk, top processes). However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the format, units, or structure of the returned data. For a system monitoring tool, more detail about what 'comprehensive' means would be helpful, but the description meets minimum viability given the simple context.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading parameter information.

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 comprehensive system overview: CPU, memory, disk, and top processes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources (CPU, memory, disk, top processes), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resource_cpu', 'resource_memory', or 'resource_disk', which appear to provide more specific metrics.

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. With sibling tools like 'resource_cpu', 'resource_memory', 'resource_disk', and 'process_top' that seem to offer more granular data, there's no indication whether this tool aggregates those or serves a different purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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