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. It indicates this is a read operation (listing) and specifies what information is returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like session existence requirements, permission needs, or error behavior. The description adds basic context about what gets listed but lacks depth on operational constraints.

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?

Two clear, focused sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second specifies the output format. The description is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format structure or potential error conditions, though the simplicity of the tool makes the current description reasonably complete.

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, documenting the optional 'session' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one optional parameter and complete schema documentation, the baseline is appropriately high. The description's mention of 'lists all if omitted' aligns with but doesn't extend the schema's 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 specific action ('List windows'), target resource ('in a tmux session'), and output details ('Shows window index, name, and active status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and tmux_list_panes by focusing specifically on windows within 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 implies usage for listing tmux windows, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_session_info. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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