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 successfully discloses key behavioral traits: 'Live' and 'Real-time' indicate data freshness, 'Call this anytime' implies the operation is safe/idempotent and read-only, and the bulleted list clarifies that it returns curated guide content including tips and examples, not just raw metrics.

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 optimally structured with a clear value proposition in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of specific return values, and concluding with usage metaphors ('/status command'). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.

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's low complexity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides complete contextual coverage. It explains the tool's role within the broader MidOS ecosystem and adequately differentiates it from the 17 sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Per the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, focusing entirely on the return value semantics.

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 explicitly defines this as a 'Live MidOS system status + quick-start guide' and distinguishes it from siblings like `hive_status` or `memory_stats` by positioning it as the general '/status command' for orienting the agent. It clearly states the specific resources returned (knowledge base stats, vector store health, MCP tool examples, research queue).

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 clear usage context ('Call this anytime', 'Use it to orient yourself and teach your agent how to leverage MidOS'), establishing when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer specific sibling tools (e.g., `memory_stats` vs this general status) or when not to use it.

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