MidOS Research Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains this is an onboarding/configuration tool that returns 'optimal config' and provides 'sensible defaults' for empty fields. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation or if it modifies system state, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, provides critical usage instructions, then efficiently documents all parameters with helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important guidance first.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to use it, and what each parameter means. The output schema will handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for every parameter. Each parameter gets specific examples (e.g., 'claude-opus-4-6', 'python,typescript', 'manga engine with SVG rendering') that clarify what information should be provided beyond what the bare schema indicates.

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 ('Personalized agent onboarding', 'Declare your environment and get optimal config') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it should be called FIRST when connecting to MidOS. It explicitly differentiates from other tools like agent_bootstrap by focusing on initial handshake configuration rather than general bootstrapping.

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: 'Call this FIRST when connecting to MidOS' and 'Pass as much info as you know. Unknown fields can be left empty -- you'll get sensible defaults.' It clearly establishes when to use this tool (initial connection) versus alternatives, and provides practical advice about optional parameters.

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