Miyabi MCP Bundle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions output format options but doesn't specify default behavior when parameters are omitted, error handling for invalid timezones, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description provides basic functional information but lacks important behavioral context.

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 with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.

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 simple time retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't specify what happens when parameters are omitted, what the default timezone or format might be, or describe the structure of the return value. The description is minimal but functional for this straightforward tool.

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 both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three format options, but doesn't provide additional context about timezone format expectations or default behaviors. This meets the baseline 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: 'Get current time in any timezone' with specific output format options. It uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_convert' or 'time_diff' which serve different time-related functions.

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 implies usage context through 'Supports ISO, unix, or human-readable output' which suggests when different formats might be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'time_convert' or mention any prerequisites or limitations for timezone handling.

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