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. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output format, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations. It's the minimum viable for a simple read operation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Project path'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on the path format. 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 'Get' and the resource 'Spec-Kit project status', specifying it includes 'features, specs, and plan coverage'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'speckit_analyze', 'speckit_list_features', or 'speckit_plan', which might have overlapping functionality, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 sibling tools (e.g., speckit_analyze, speckit_list_features, speckit_plan) that could be related, but the description doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites for usage.

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