Operação de Transporte ANTT

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, consults only public official data, and includes LGPD compliance notes. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operational and legal boundaries.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. The second sentence adds operational details (hosting, payment, credentials), and the third a legal disclaimer. While the LGPD note is relevant, it is slightly tangential but does not bloat the description excessively.

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 narrow scope and helpful annotations, the description covers the consultation action, the data source, the public nature, and the expected outcome (registration confirmation). However, it lacks any detail on the behavior of the 'completo' parameter and possible response/error scenarios, so it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It names RNTRC and RENAVAM as the lookup keys but does not define them or explain accepted formats/constraints. The optional 'completo' parameter is entirely omitted, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 consults the registration of a road freight transport operation at ANTT using RNTRC and RENAVAM, and confirms whether the operation is registered. This specific verb+resource combination, with distinct identifiers, clearly differentiates it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 implies usage when a user needs to verify an ANTT cargo transport operation via RNTRC/RENAVAM. It provides context about the paid, credential-free nature and public data access, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, this is adequate.

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

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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints, but the description adds useful context: permanent vs session-only behavior and no-args link retrieval. It doesn't detail failure modes, but for a simple auth tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with purpose, but somewhat wordy. It is well-structured with 'Best:' and 'Or' to present options, and every sentence contributes to usage understanding.

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?

The description covers invocation methods but omits return-value behavior (e.g., success/failure indication). With no output schema, agents may not know if authentication succeeded. For a simple one-parameter tool, most usage is covered, but this gap lowers completeness.

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 has only 'token' as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `token` is the JWT pasted by the user and when to omit it (no args). It doesn't cover validation edge cases, but it makes invocation clear.

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 authenticates users via browser login and access token, with explicit verbs like 'log in' and specific resources (server config or session). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing solely on authentication.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best' practice for permanent connection via header, 'Or' session-only via token argument, and no-args behavior to get link. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use each option, effectively guiding tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing specific return values (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) and conditional behavior. Minor gap: it does not mention partial connectivity states, but overall it enhances the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys both purpose and conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main scenarios: all connected vs. credentials missing. It returns enough information about the response structure. The only omission is partial connectivity, but the description is otherwise complete and appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description need not add parameter semantics since none exist, and it doesn't attempt to invent any.

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 function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by describing the conditions under which different outputs are returned (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like 'authenticate' or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

Even though annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke runs an MCP one-off without installing it, returns a connect link when credentials are needed and a checkout/top-up link when payment is required, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also reveals search/describe installed flags.

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 long, but dense and information-rich, covering many actions and edge cases without fluff. It would benefit from clearer structural separation (e.g., bullets or sections) given its length, but every sentence earns its place by adding critical workflow or cautionary details.

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?

For a tool with 14 actions and 23 parameters, the description covers the main execution flows, permission caveats, and exception handling (connect/checkout), making it largely sufficient for correct use. It falls slightly short on the prompt-library sub-feature's parameter details and on some niche actions like resume/tier_slug, but overall it is a robust and complete narrative.

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 the role of key parameters like action (via listing enum values), mcp_id, tool_id, and query (via examples), but it does not document all 23 parameters (e.g., prompt_* fields, cancel_*, immediate, tier_slug). It provides a partial semantic map but leaves several parameters underspecified.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution engine, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinct actions (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the central marketplace for both discovery and one-off execution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use invoke (one-off/occasional) vs install (permanent), explains the connect and checkout/top-up link flows with retry instructions, and clarifies when to use report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library functions. It also notes admin permission requirements for writes.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the instruction to include a conversation array, which is more about input than 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key parameter guidance. However, it does not specify that 'conversation' is a stringified JSON array (given the string type and default '[]'), which could be ambiguous. Slightly under-specified but adequate for straightforward use.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter as 'conversation array with recent messages for reproduction', adding meaning not in the schema. However, 'message' and 'context' are not explicitly detailed, though their names are fairly self-explanatory. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a specific verb: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It identifies the resource (bug/feedback) and is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are about reporting issues.

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 a clear use case (report a bug/feedback) and gives practical guidance on including the conversation array for reproduction. No alternatives are mentioned, but siblings are unrelated, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating what versions are shown, such as output format or potential network calls. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Show,' and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple version-query tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact pieces of information returned (platform and adapter versions). However, it could have specified the return format or mentioned that it provides runtime environment details, which would make it fully comprehensive.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing the tool's function from siblings like toolkit_info which likely provide broader information.

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 implies usage for checking version information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the context slightly ambiguous among sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the return payload, specifying what information is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the simple annotation hints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the key data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects an agent would need to know about this state-inspection tool: what MCPs are installed, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete for a read-only info tool, though it could technically mention that it returns no other unrelated state.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value instead of padding with irrelevant parameter details.

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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like connect and authenticate.

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 implies usage for inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. Without an output schema or explicit exclusions, the agent must infer that this is the go-to tool for status checks.

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