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 the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the name doesn't exist), or any side effects.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately; the Args section efficiently documents the single parameter without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter retrieval tool, especially since an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values). However, gaps remain regarding the EUREKA document lifecycle, error states, and ecosystem relationships given the rich sibling toolset.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides critical compensatory value by including concrete examples ('EUREKA_CACHE_SEMANTICA', 'ATOM_001') that clarify the expected naming convention and format for the 'name' parameter, which the raw schema lacks entirely.

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?

States clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('EUREKA breakthrough document'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_protocol or get_skill. However, it assumes the agent knows what 'EUREKA' represents in this domain without elaborating on the document's nature or contents.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_knowledge' or 'semantic_search' to find EUREKA documents, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the exact name beforehand).

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