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 the tool is 'useful for waiting on long operations,' which hints at a monitoring or polling use case, but it doesn't specify what 'busy' means (e.g., running vs. idle), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output format is. 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: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key usage scenario. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the purpose and a use case but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'busy' entails, error handling) and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to clarify safety or side effects. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('target pane'), so the schema already documents it well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Check if a pane is running a command.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('pane'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tmux_pane_current_command or tmux_pane_capture, which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for waiting on long operations.' This implies when to use it (e.g., monitoring command execution), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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