MidOS Research Protocol MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It successfully communicates the deprecation status and return behavior ('Returns default config'). However, it omits details about side effects, idempotency, or why the tool is deprecated, leaving minor gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise with three distinct information units: deprecation warning at the front, purpose statement, and return value description. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters, has an output schema (relieving the description of detailed return value documentation), and is marked deprecated, the description provides complete contextual coverage. It explains what it does, what it returns, and the migration path.

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 contains 0 parameters with 100% coverage. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per the scoring rules. The description appropriately does not attempt to add parameter semantics where none exist.

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 performs 'Generic agent onboarding' and 'Returns default config for unknown agents.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling agent_handshake by marking itself as deprecated in favor of that tool, providing clear scope differentiation.

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 explicitly states '[DEPRECATED -- use agent_handshake instead]', providing an unambiguous directive on when NOT to use this tool and naming the specific alternative (agent_handshake) to use instead. This is maximal guidance.

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