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 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this modifies existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that creates formal specifications, this is a significant gap in 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context for understanding what the tool does at a high level. However, for a tool that creates formal specifications - which could involve complex outputs or side effects - the description should ideally provide more context about what 'formal specification' means in this system.

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 fully documents both parameters (feature and path). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'feature description' which matches the schema's parameter description exactly. With complete 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 action ('Create') and the output ('a formal specification') from the input ('from a feature description'). It's specific about the transformation being performed. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_analyze or speckit_plan, which might have overlapping purposes 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. With many sibling tools in the speckit category (speckit_analyze, speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 'specify' operation is appropriate versus other specification-related tools.

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