ANTT SIFAMA: Lista de Autos de Infração

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it requires prepaid credit, does not require platform credentials, and clarifies data ownership and LGPD compliance, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 moderately sized, starts with the core function, and adds relevant service details. Could be tightened but is not excessive.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, the description provides no input guidance, expected output, or parameter details. It covers service context but leaves the caller without enough information to construct a proper request.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or expectations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 queries the ANTT SIFAMA list of infraction notices from official sources. It specifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on authentication, marketplace, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or comparisons, only describes service characteristics like payment and data control.

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?

The description does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or consequences of authentication beyond the two methods. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on what changes occur (e.g., creating a session or writing config).

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 somewhat verbose and repetitive, with two similar sentences about login methods. It could be tightened, but the structure (option A, option B) is logical and readable.

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?

It explains both methods but does not describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns the link, success message, or errors) or any prerequisites. Given no output schema, this omission leaves some ambiguity for the caller.

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 single 'token' parameter is fully explained: it is a JWT for session-only login. The description clarifies that providing no argument returns the link, giving complete semantic clarity for the parameter.

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 is for authentication, explaining both a permanent and session-based method. The verb 'authenticate' is specific, though the phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' adds some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

Instructions are provided for both usage modes (with token or without args to get a link). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', missing when-to-use guidance.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying exact return conditions: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 primary purpose, and uses conditional phrasing efficiently to convey the two relevant states. Every clause adds information; there is no filler 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the authenticated and credential-missing cases. It does not fully specify partial connection states or the exact structure of pending[], but the information given is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is trivially 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than inputs.

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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by framing connect as a status/URL provider rather than an auth action.

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 clear conditional context: use this when checking whether providers are connected versus whether credentials are missing, with specific expected outputs for each case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true): invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect link for missing credentials, returns checkout link for empty wallet, and distinguishes shop/workspace installation flags. Discloses that write actions require owner/admin. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely verbose—a single multi-paragraph block covering the marketplace, prompt library, payment flows, and permission details. It front-loads the purpose but becomes a wall of text that is hard to scan. Could be restructured with bullet points or separated sections for each action group.

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 23 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of behaviors, flows, auth/payment error handling, and permissions. It covers the core workflow, auxiliary actions, and even the prompt library. Some parameter details are only implied, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the main `action` parameter (listing all enum values) and mentions core identifiers (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt params like prompt_slug, prompt_vars). However, many parameters (limit, query, report_context, request_details, cancel_reason, etc.) are not explicitly described, leaving inference required. Provides general context but not complete mapping.

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 — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It specifies the core flow (search→describe→invoke) and enumerates distinct actions (install, subscribe, report_bug, prompt library) with clear roles. It differentiates from sibling tools (none similar) by being the only marketplace.

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?

Provides explicit decision guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs install, when to use list_tools, request_mcp, and prompt search/get/publish. Gives concrete examples like 'find an MCP that does X' and 'consulta um CPF'. Also notes permission requirements (writes require workspace owner/admin) and explains auth/payment flows with retry instructions.

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?

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the context that the conversation array helps with 'reproduction,' which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success, error handling, or any side effects (e.g., ticket creation), leaving some ambiguity for a write operation. It doesn't contradict the annotations, so it's acceptable but not exhaustive.

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: the first states the tool's purpose concisely, and the second gives a crucial instruction. Every word adds value, and it's immediately scannable. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but leaves the 'message' and 'context' parameters unexplained. The instruction to include the conversation array is helpful, but the missing parameter semantics weaken the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly on the first try. It's a minimum-viable description.

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. The description mentions the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array...') but provides no guidance on the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context'. The agent is left guessing what to put in those fields, which is a significant gap given the absence of schema descriptions or output 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like marketplace or authenticate, and the added instruction about the conversation array reinforces its role. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool—for bugs, missing features, or feedback. It also provides a practical usage hint ('Include the conversation array...') which helps the agent understand what to pass. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or describe when not to use it, though none of the sibling tools overlap with this functionality.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the specific scope (MCP platform and adapter versions) without contradicting annotations. It is transparent about being a read-only operation, though it doesn't elaborate on return format or side effects, which are not needed given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It directly states what the tool does without any extraneous information. Perfectly concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool is simple, has no parameters, no output schema, and is fully annotated. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does, and given the annotations and schema, there is no missing information. It is complete for its purpose.

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 input schema is fully covered (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information but doesn't need to. It correctly implies no inputs are required, which is consistent with the 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 tool's action ('Show') and the specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from siblings like toolkit_info by being narrowly focused on versions. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, when compared to toolkit_info, there is no clarification on which tool to choose for broader system information. This leaves usage implicit.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description's 'returns' confirms no side effects. The description adds clarity by specifying what information is retrieved, aligning with the annotations without contradiction.

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, concise sentence that directly states the return value without fluff or redundancy. It is perfectly sized for the information conveyed.

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 lists the components of the return value, but it omits structural details (e.g., whether it's an object with arrays). Given there is no output schema, a bit more structure would improve completeness, though the current description is adequate for a simple state query.

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 no parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. The empty input schema is fully sufficient, so this dimension is trivially satisfied.

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 returns the current toolkit state and enumerates the specific pieces of information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making its 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 use for querying state but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect). However, the read-only, idempotent nature is evident, and given the sibling context, the usage scenario is fairly clear.

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