MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains what constitutes chunks (functions, classes, methods) but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), idempotency, supported programming languages, or output format characteristics despite having an output schema.

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?

Appropriately sized for a 1-parameter tool. Uses standard docstring format with clear separation between purpose statement and argument documentation. No redundant sentences, though 'to chunk' in the arg description slightly echoes the tool name.

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?

Sufficient for tool selection given low complexity (1 param) and existence of output schema. Captures core functionality and parameter semantics. Minor gap in not mentioning output structure or file type constraints, but acceptable given output schema handles return value documentation.

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 has 0% description coverage. The Args section compensates by documenting file_path as 'Path to code file to chunk', clarifying it targets code specifically. Would benefit from details on absolute vs relative paths or supported extensions, but adequately covers the single required parameter.

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?

Specific verb 'Parse' + resource 'code file' + detailed output 'semantic chunks (functions, classes, methods)' + purpose 'for better RAG retrieval'. Clearly distinguishes from search-oriented siblings like semantic_search and episodic_search by focusing on file parsing rather than querying stored memory.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('for better RAG retrieval') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like semantic_search. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., file must exist locally) or when to prefer full-text analysis over chunking.

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