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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying a read-only action, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for non-existent skills, or details the output format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence provides essential parameter details with an example. There's no wasted text, and the structure is efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency. For a simple read tool with output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'name' refers to 'Skill name' and provides an example ('e.g., 'RAG_SYSTEMS_2026_SOTA''), which clarifies the parameter's purpose and expected format. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases like case sensitivity.

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 skill/capability document by name.' This includes a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('skill/capability document'), and method ('by name'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_skills', which appears to be a related listing tool, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 the sibling tool 'list_skills' or any other tools like 'search_knowledge' or 'semantic_search' that might be relevant for finding skills. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing to know the exact skill name, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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