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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only status/guide tool (implied by 'get' and 'status'), provides real-time information, and serves as an orientation resource. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, though these might be less critical for a status tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of what it provides, and concludes with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it returns, without needing to detail output values since an output schema exists.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output.

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 provides 'Live MidOS system status + quick-start guide for your agent' and enumerates specific components like knowledge base stats, vector store health, available MCP tools, research queue, and tips. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the comprehensive status/guide tool rather than focused operations like agent_bootstrap, episodic_search, or hive_status.

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 explicitly states 'Call this anytime to get' and 'Use it to orient yourself and teach your agent how to leverage MidOS,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It positions this as the '/status command' for orientation, distinguishing it from more specific siblings like get_eureka or search_knowledge.

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