Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires tmux to be installed/running, what format the output takes (list, table, JSON), whether it shows detached sessions, or if there are any permissions requirements. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise with two short sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality with specific details (window count and status). The second sentence adds context about discovering active sessions. There's zero wasted language or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity is low (simple listing operation) and there are no annotations to supplement understanding, the description meets minimum viability but leaves operational questions unanswered.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 (not 5) because while it correctly omits parameter discussion, it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required' which could help clarify for the agent.

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 specific action ('List all tmux sessions') and specifies what information is included ('with window count and status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_list_windows and tmux_list_panes by focusing on sessions rather than windows or panes. The phrase 'Discover active terminal sessions' reinforces the purpose.

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 ('Discover active terminal sessions') suggesting this is for finding currently running tmux sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like tmux_session_info (which appears to provide detailed info about a specific session) or other session management tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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