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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'Check'), it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second reinforces the purpose with slightly different phrasing. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about output format, data freshness, or system requirements. Given the simplicity of the tool (0 params, no complex behavior), the description is reasonably complete though could benefit from output format clarification.

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 mention any parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist.

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', 'Check') and resources ('system uptime', 'boot timestamp', 'how long system has been running'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, and resource_overview by focusing specifically on uptime metrics rather than broader system resources.

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 ('Check how long system has been running') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resource_overview (which might include uptime) or other monitoring tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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