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 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this tool makes changes, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the analysis output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero waste.

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's apparent complexity (analyzing consistency between specs and implementation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'consistency' means, what format the analysis takes, or what happens during execution. The single parameter is documented in the schema, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'path' described as 'Project path.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 action ('analyze') and target ('project for consistency between specs and implementation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, or speckit_status, which appear to be related to the same speckit system but serve different purposes.

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. There are multiple speckit-related tools (speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, speckit_init, etc.) that likely serve different purposes, but the description doesn't indicate when this analysis tool is appropriate versus those other tools. No 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.