MidOS Research Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a document, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'breakthrough document' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following in a clear 'Args:' section. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors) and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'name' parameter is a 'EUREKA name' and provides examples ('EUREKA_CACHE_SEMANTICA' or 'ATOM_001'), clarifying the expected format and values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or patterns.

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: 'Get a specific EUREKA breakthrough document.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('EUREKA breakthrough document'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_protocol' or 'get_skill', which appear to have similar 'get' patterns, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for selection among siblings (e.g., 'get_protocol' or 'get_skill'), or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name and purpose, lacking explicit when/when-not instructions.

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