Auxílio Emergencial

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context about session persistence (permanent vs session-only) and the link retrieval behavior. It does not detail side effects like token replacement or invalidation, but the added session-duration context goes beyond the structured 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 long but every sentence contributes useful information about the two login modes and the config option. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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 covers the main use cases, invocation patterns, and token handling. It does not explicitly describe return values or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 a single 'token' property with no description (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains that the token is a JWT, how to use it in a call, and the no-args behavior, adding essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 an authentication flow for IDE agents, explaining how to log in and obtain/use an access token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication, not other actions.

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 instructions for two scenarios: permanent connection via config header, and session-only via token argument. It also clarifies that calling with no arguments retrieves the login link. It does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the context is unambiguous.

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 goes beyond this by explaining that it queries public-access information (not private/confidential), that no credentials are required, and that the client is the LGPD data controller. This adds meaningful context about data sensitivity, authentication, and legal responsibility.

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 three-sentence description is efficient: it covers purpose, payment model, data sensitivity, and legal compliance without fluff. The LGPD sentence, while somewhat legalistic, adds essential governance context. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise while slightly dense with auxiliary information.

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 addresses query inputs, data classification, cost, and compliance, but it does not describe the response format or possible error conditions (e.g., invalid CPF/NIS, not found). Since there is no output schema, this missing information leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the call, making completeness only adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It identifies CPF and NIS as the identifiers used for the query, but it does not explain the optional 'completo' boolean parameter, nor does it provide format or validation details. It partially compensates for the schema gap, leaving one parameter ambiguous.

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 the specific verb 'Verifica' (checks) with the resource 'recebimento do Auxílio Emergencial' (receipt of Emergency Aid), explicitly naming the inputs CPF and NIS. This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: to verify Emergency Aid receipt via CPF/NIS, with notes on prepaid credit and no credentials needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the siblings are so distinct that usage intent is obvious, meriting a 4 rather than 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and scenarios that affect output. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the actual response structure, earning credit.

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 core function ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then elaborates on edge cases. Every sentence provides meaningful information with no redundancy or vague 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: all connected vs. missing credentials. It explains the key return fields and the presence of connect_url. Minor gaps include not explicitly describing partial connectivity states, but the mention of 'empty pending[]' implies non-empty for intermediate states. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, so it does not add confusion. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately explains that the tool requires no input.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug. It also explains key output states, making the scope unmistakable.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. However, the conditional behavior (when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing) implies when the tool is useful. It lacks a direct comparison with sibling tools such as authenticate, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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 goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.). It discloses that invoke runs tools one-off even when the MCP is not installed, does not bloat the tool list, and returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment before retrying. It also details permission requirements for writes and explains the prompt library behaviors. 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 dense and long, consisting of several sentences with many embedded clauses. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, but the extensive behavioral detail is packed into a single wall of text rather than structured bullets. While most content is valuable, it could have been more concise and easier to scan, so it earns a 3.

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 high complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers a comprehensive set of contexts: the core search→describe→invoke flow, edge cases (not installed, missing credentials/wallet), permission requirements, install vs invoke trade-offs, and the separate prompt library. It addresses retry behavior and alternative tools sufficiently for an agent to act correctly.

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?

Although the schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, the tool description explains the key parameter 'action' exhaustively by walking through each enum value (search, describe, install, uninstall, invoke, etc.). It also gives meaning to mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related parameters through the described flows. However, not every parameter is explicitly covered, and some defaults ('limit', 'query', 'immediate') are only implied, not defined.

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: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses specific verbs (catalog, run, discover) and a clear resource (MCPs/tools), and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and connect by positioning itself as the central marketplace and execution platform.

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 usage guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and explains retry flows for auth and payment links. It also specifies permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin'). This is strong when-to-use and alternative-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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds practical guidance by advising inclusion of the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or response behavior. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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-loads the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and key usage detail.

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 relatively simple, but the description lacks coverage of all three parameters and does not mention limits, response handling, or downstream effects. Annotations cover safety basics, making this moderately complete but with clear gaps in parameter clarity and behavior after submission.

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 'conversation' parameter for reproduction, and 'message' is implied by 'Report a bug', but the 'context' parameter is entirely unexplained. This incomplete parameter documentation fails to fully compensate for the missing 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's purpose with specific actions ('Report', 'send') and targets ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which handle bug reporting or feedback.

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 lists three scenarios when to use the tool (bug, missing feature, feedback). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tool covers this functionality, the implied guidance is sufficient for correct 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety expectations. The description adds context by specifying that both platform and adapter versions are shown, going beyond the generic tool name. 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes, with no filler 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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It fully explains the purpose without needing to describe return formats or complex behavior. A slightly richer note about the output could push it higher, but it is not essential.

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 the schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and baseline 4 applies for parameter-free tools.

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 specific verb 'Show' and precise resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 gives clear context: this is a simple read-only call to retrieve version information. It does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but the use case is obvious and no exclusions are needed for such a basic informational tool.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat safety info. It adds value by detailing what specific state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the basic read-only hint. No contradictions 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the key payload elements. Every word is informative and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value by enumerating all included parts (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what information will be provided.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since the input schema is empty and no additional meaning is required.

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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like show_version or 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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving toolkit-level state, which implies it should be used when the agent needs an overview of connections and catalog counts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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