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 mentions what the tool does (conversion) and input formats, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., ISO8601, Unix timestamp, or human-readable), error handling for invalid timezones, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds essential input format details in the second. There's no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy.

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 (time conversion with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and input formats but misses output details, error handling, and usage context. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 parameters (time, from, to) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating accepted formats ('ISO8601 or unix timestamps') for the 'time' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like timezone format examples (e.g., 'UTC', 'America/New_York') or default behaviors. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Convert time between timezones.' It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('time'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like time_current, time_diff, and time_format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calc_unit_convert, which might also handle time conversions, 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like time_current (for current time), time_diff (for time differences), or time_format (for formatting time), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the accepted input formats, which is parameter-related rather than contextual guidance.

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