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 'summarizes' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, or what the output format looks like. 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 that front-loads the core action ('summarize') and purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly mentioning inputs or outputs).

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 moderate complexity (summarizing sessions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sessionId' and 'includeAlternatives'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'key insights and conclusions' entail or how 'includeAlternatives' affects the summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('thinking session'), and it specifies the output ('key insights and conclusions'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'think_branch' or 'think_step', which might also relate to thinking sessions.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing thinking session), exclusions, or how it differs from other tools in the list (like 'think_branch' or 'think_step'), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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