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 states the tool searches for a pattern in pane content and terminal history, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it searches only visible content or full scrollback, if it's case-sensitive, what the output format is (e.g., matches with line numbers), or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: 'Search pane content for a pattern. Find specific output in terminal history.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (searching terminal content) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral details (e.g., search scope, output format), usage context, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to compensate, which it fails to do adequately.

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 'target' described as 'Target pane (optional)' and 'pattern' as 'Search pattern (substring match).' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'pattern' implicitly but not elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search pane content for a pattern. Find specific output in terminal history.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pane content'), and scope ('terminal history'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'tmux_pane_capture' or 'tmux_pane_tail' that might involve pane content differently.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active tmux session), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring), or related tools (e.g., 'tmux_pane_capture' for full content vs. search). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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