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 sorting and a default limit, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool that likely interacts with system processes, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key detail (default limit). There's no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 complexity of a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use in a production environment.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'resource hogs' and the default limit, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like usage examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 top processes sorted by CPU or memory usage.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('processes'), and sorting criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_top' or 'process_list', which appear to offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 usage guidance. It mentions 'Find resource hogs' and a default limit, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_top' or 'resource_cpu'. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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