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. It states the tool generates a task list, implying a read-only or generative operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a mutation (e.g., saves tasks), requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the output format. For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate actionable task list from a feature plan.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (generative, likely involves processing a feature plan), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., speckit_plan). With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('feature' and 'path'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to generating tasks or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate actionable task list from a feature plan.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('actionable task list'), and input source ('feature plan'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (e.g., speckit_analyze, speckit_plan, speckit_specify), which might have overlapping or related purposes in the speckit category.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage (e.g., after speckit_plan or speckit_specify), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, including other speckit tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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