MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose error handling (what happens if the skill doesn't exist?), safety properties (though 'Get' implies read-only), or side effects. The burden falls entirely on the description, which provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence for the purpose, followed by a concise Args section. No redundant or wasted text. The structure efficiently uses space to convey the essential information given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool where an output schema exists (removing the need to describe return values). However, given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should include error handling behavior or name matching rules to be fully complete.

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 compensates effectively by providing the parameter name, semantic meaning ('Skill name'), and a concrete example value ('RAG_SYSTEMS_2026_SOTA') that clarifies the expected naming convention. Could improve by noting if the match is case-sensitive.

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?

Clearly states the action (Get) and resource (specific skill/capability document). The word 'specific' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'list_skills'. However, it doesn't clarify what content the 'capability document' contains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_skills' (when you don't know the exact name) or 'search_knowledge' (for broader lookups). Doesn't mention that the name must match exactly or what to do if the skill isn't found.

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