MidOS Research Protocol

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 mentions the tool is deprecated (important behavioral context) and describes its return behavior ('returns default config for unknown agents'), but doesn't specify error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with only two sentences that each earn their place: the first provides critical deprecation guidance, and the second explains the tool's residual functionality. It's front-loaded with the most important information (deprecation warning).

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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description clearly explains its deprecated status and basic functionality, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from more detail about what 'default config' includes or when this tool might still be appropriate despite deprecation.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('onboarding', 'returns default config') and resources ('unknown agents'), while explicitly distinguishing it from its sibling 'agent_handshake' through the deprecation notice. It avoids tautology by explaining functionality beyond the tool name.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating '[DEPRECATED -- use agent_handshake instead]', which clearly indicates when not to use this tool and names the alternative. This direct instruction helps the agent avoid selecting a deprecated tool.

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