MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context that 'Skills with matching compatibility.json are prioritized' when using the stack filter, indicating ranking behavior. However, it omits read-only safety confirmation, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling.

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?

Uses an 'Args:' structure that efficiently documents parameters without redundancy. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately. No extraneous text, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly informal for MCP standards.

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 2-parameter list operation with output schema present (per context signals). Both parameters are documented in the description text. However, it lacks cross-references to related tools (get_skill) and doesn't clarify what 'available' means in context.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The description documents both parameters: filter is 'for skill names' and stack accepts 'comma-separated' values with example ('python,react') and explains the compatibility.json matching logic not present in the schema.

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 opening sentence 'List all available skills/capabilities' provides a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_skill' (likely for retrieving individual skills), though the plural 'skills' vs singular 'skill' in names offers implicit distinction.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'get_skill' or other retrieval tools like 'search_knowledge'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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