MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to explain mutation semantics, idempotency, broadcasting behavior, or side effects of signaling. 'Signal an action' is vague regarding what happens to the pool state or other instances.

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 with clear docstring-style structure. The one-line purpose statement followed by the Args block is efficient, though the formatting is slightly technical rather than conversational.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. Parameter documentation is complete, but the description misses behavioral context expected for a multi-instance coordination tool (e.g., concurrency implications, delivery guarantees).

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 Args section documents all four parameters, including crucial enum-like values for 'action' ('completed', 'blocked', 'claimed', 'signaling') that the schema omits, and marks 'affects' as optional.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Signal') and resource ('multi-instance coordination pool'), providing specific functional scope. However, it assumes familiarity with the coordination pool concept without clarifying its purpose relative to the sibling 'pool_status' tool.

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 tool versus siblings like 'pool_status', 'agent_handshake', or 'hive_status'. The description documents parameters but lacks contextual prerequisites or workflow integration notes.

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