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 ('Get') and mentions retrieving 'recent activity', but lacks details on what constitutes 'recent', whether there are side effects (e.g., updating access timestamps), performance characteristics, or rate limiting concerns.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of seven words that immediately states the action and target resource. There is no redundancy or extraneous information; every word serves a purpose.

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 tool has an output schema (covering return values) and zero input parameters, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, given the presence of multiple similar status-checking siblings, the description is incomplete without clarifying the specific scope of the 'pool' versus 'hive' or 'project' coordination systems.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation since there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'multi-instance coordination pool status and recent activity', which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'hive_status' or 'project_status', leaving ambiguity about which coordination system to query.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pool_signal', 'hive_status', or 'project_status'. There are no 'when-not' conditions, prerequisites, or selection criteria mentioned.

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