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. It states the tool searches for errors or events but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For a search 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 highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and platform restriction, with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (searching system logs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., event details, timestamps), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites (e.g., admin rights). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (log, level, source, maxEvents). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'errors or specific events' relates to the 'level' parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal additional semantic value.

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 Windows Event Log for errors or specific events (Windows only).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Windows Event Log'), and target ('errors or specific events'), with platform restriction noted. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_journal_search' or 'log_search' beyond the Windows-specific mention.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'Windows only' and implies usage for searching errors or events, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'log_search' or 'linux_journal_search' (a sibling tool), leaving the agent with little context for tool selection.

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