Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a real-time snapshot or historical data, what format the temperature data returns (degrees, units), whether it requires special permissions, or if there are rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for proper tool selection.

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 just two short sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core function, the second provides the monitoring context. No wasted words, well-structured with the primary purpose front-loaded.

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 important context about what the output contains (temperature values, units, timestamps, throttling indicators). Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally specify what kind of data structure or information the agent can expect to receive.

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 discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics as it correctly avoids redundant 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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Monitor') and resources ('CPU and system temperatures', 'thermal throttling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resource_cpu' or 'resource_overview' by focusing specifically on temperature monitoring rather than general CPU metrics or system overview.

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 ('Monitor for thermal throttling') suggesting this tool is for thermal monitoring scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'resource_overview' for general system health or 'process_cpu_history' for CPU performance trends. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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