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 'records' a reasoning step, which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify where or how this recording happens, whether it's persistent, if it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes the key parameter information without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after recording (e.g., where the step is stored, how it can be retrieved, or what the return value might be). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the 'type' parameter with its enum values, but this adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about how parameters should be used together.

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: 'Record a reasoning step with type (observation, hypothesis, analysis, conclusion).' It specifies the verb ('record') and resource ('reasoning step'), and mentions the type parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like think_branch or think_summarize, which appear related to reasoning processes.

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 sibling tools like think_branch or think_summarize, nor does it specify contexts where recording reasoning steps is appropriate versus other thinking-related operations. The usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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