MidOS Research Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, result format, or whether it's read-only. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 core purpose. The two-sentence structure with an 'Args' section is efficient, though the formatting could be slightly more polished for readability.

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, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for effective tool selection.

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 adds clear meaning for both parameters: 'query' as search keywords/topic and 'max_results' with a default value. This effectively documents the parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Midos knowledge base') with a specific purpose ('for relevant information'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'semantic_search' by specifying the knowledge base target, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search' or 'episodic_search'. The description implies usage for general knowledge queries but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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