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 filtering and prioritization ('Skills with matching compatibility.json are prioritized'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on output format (though an output schema exists), pagination, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 purpose stated first and parameters explained in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter purposes but lacks behavioral context like performance or limitations. For a list tool with filtering, it's adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'filter' for skill names and 'stack' for comma-separated stacks with prioritization based on 'compatibility.json'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail exact matching rules or format constraints.

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: 'List all available skills/capabilities.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('skills/capabilities'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_skill' (which likely retrieves a single skill), leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'get_skill' for single skill retrieval or 'search_knowledge' for broader searches) or specify contexts where listing skills is preferred. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly defined.

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