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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get statistics' and specifies the subsystems accessed (LanceDB, cache), but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or lack of side effects. Given it has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on scope rather than return format.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Get statistics') and efficiently parenthetical details specifying the exact statistics categories. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema. The description identifies the specific subsystems monitored (LanceDB chunks, cache status), which is sufficient given the output schema handles return value documentation. Minor gap in not mentioning typical use cases (monitoring, debugging).

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema structure.

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 'Get statistics' plus clear resource 'Midos memory system' with parenthetical specification of what statistics (LanceDB chunks, cache status). Distinguishes from sibling status tools (hive_status, pool_status) by specifying the memory domain, and from memory operations (episodic_store, semantic_search) by indicating it's a statistics retrieval operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. While the purpose is clear enough for basic inference, it lacks statements like 'Use this to diagnose memory issues' or 'Call before large ingest operations to check cache status' that would help an agent select it appropriately.

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