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 mentions the tool's purpose but omits critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., executing commands in the pane), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 front-loaded and efficient, using two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and typical use case without redundancy. Every word contributes value, 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 moderate complexity (sending input to a tmux pane), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output expectations, which are important for a tool that interacts with live sessions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'keys' (e.g., special tmux key sequences) or constraints for 'target'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 action ('Send keystrokes or text') and target ('to a tmux pane'), with a specific purpose ('Use for automation or remote commands'). It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_list_panes or tmux_pane_capture by focusing on input rather than inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 'automation or remote commands,' suggesting when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites like needing an active tmux session or compare with other input methods.

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