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 what information is retrieved (status, start type, dependencies) but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions (e.g., admin rights), error handling (e.g., if the service doesn't exist), or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential platform constraints, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and platform context but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. It is minimally viable for understanding what the tool does but incomplete for safe and effective use, especially given the absence of structured metadata.

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 the single parameter 'service' documented as 'Service name'. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or format specifics (e.g., case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Windows service status, start type, and dependencies') with platform specificity ('Windows only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_status' or 'process_info', which reduces it from 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 implies usage by specifying 'Windows only', which provides some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for Windows services vs. Linux systemd units or general process info), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for interpretation.

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