Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Generate' implies a creation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this creates persistent artifacts, what format the output takes, whether it's idempotent, or what permissions might be required. For a tool that presumably creates planning artifacts, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no complex behavioral requirements. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about the planning methodology, output format, or relationship to other speckit_* tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for proper tool selection.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('feature' and 'path') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the feature parameter relates to the planning process or what the path parameter influences. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('implementation plan') with specific components ('steps and dependencies for a feature'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like speckit_analyze or speckit_specify by focusing on planning rather than analysis or specification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the speckit_* family.

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_* tools (speckit_analyze, speckit_checklist, speckit_specify, speckit_tasks) that likely serve related purposes, but no indication is given about when this planning tool is appropriate versus those other tools.

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